On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 01:43:35PM -0700, James Houghton wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 1:03 PM David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h index b100df8cb5857..1b1f40ff00b7d 100644 --- a/include/linux/mm.h +++ b/include/linux/mm.h @@ -2926,6 +2926,12 @@ static inline spinlock_t *pte_lockptr(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd) return ptlock_ptr(page_ptdesc(pmd_page(*pmd))); }
+static inline spinlock_t *ptep_lockptr(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t *pte) +{
BUILD_BUG_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HIGHPTE));return ptlock_ptr(virt_to_ptdesc(pte));Hi David,
Small question: ptep_lockptr() does not handle the case where the size of the PTE table is larger than PAGE_SIZE, but pmd_lockptr() does. IIUC, for pte_lockptr() and ptep_lockptr() to return the same result in this case, ptep_lockptr() should be doing the masking that pmd_lockptr() is doing. Are you sure that you don't need to be doing it? (Or maybe I am misunderstanding something.)
I was just curious and looked at pte_alloc_one(), not too much archs implemented it besides the default (which calls pte_alloc_one_noprof(), and should be order=0 there). I didn't see any arch that actually allocated with non-zero orders.
The motorola/m68k one is slightly involved, but still.. nothing I spot yet.
Thanks,