Re: [PATCH v3 15/17] mm: pgtable: remove tlb_remove_page_ptdesc()
Qi Zheng <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel,gmane.linux.kernel.mm,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.riscv,gmane.linux.ports.sparc,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel.cross-arch,gmane.linux.ports.hexagon,gmane.linux.ports.mips,gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel,gmane.linux.uml.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2025/1/3 19:14, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 11:26:22AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 05:41:01PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote: >>> Here we are explicitly dealing with struct page, and the following logic >>> semms strange: >>> >>> tlb_remove_page_ptdesc((tlb), (page_ptdesc(pte))); >>> >>> tlb_remove_page_ptdesc >>> --> tlb_remove_page(tlb, ptdesc_page(pt)); >>> >>> So remove tlb_remove_page_ptdesc() and make callers call tlb_remove_page() >>> directly. >> >> Please don't. The ptdesc wrappers are there as a part of reducing the size >> of struct page project [1]. >> >> For now struct ptdesc overlaps struct page, but the goal is to have them >> separate and always operate on struct ptdesc when working with page tables. > > I don't see how the current idiotic code helps with that at all. > > Fundamentally tlb_remove_page() is about removing *pages* as from a PTE, > there should not be a page-table anywhere near here *ever*. > > Yes, some architectures use tlb_remove_page() for page-tables too, but > that is more or less an implementation detail that can be fixed. > > So no, please keep these patches and kill this utterly idiotic code. > > The only thing that should eventually care about page-tables is > tlb_remove_table(), and that takes a 'void *' and is expected to match > whatever __tlb_remove_table() does. > > Flipping those to pgdesc, once its actually a thing, should be fairly > straight forward. Well, since I've already sent v4, and that patch series is mainly for bug fix, I'll send a separate patch series to do this. Thanks!