On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:51:52PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 08:40:28PM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> How aboutL:
>
> * level
> * Level 0 is always a table of only leaves with no futher table pointers.
> * Increasing levels increase the size of the table items. The least
> * significant VA bits used to index page tables are used to index the
> Level
> * 0 table.
Yea, this is clearer.
> > > + * item
> > > + * A single position in a table
> > > + * entry
> > > + * A single logical element in a table. If contiguous pages are not
> > > + * supported then item and entry are the same thing, otherwise entry
> > > refers
> > > + * to the all the items that comprise a single contiguous
> > > translation.
> >
> > So, an "entry" is a group of "items" if contiguous pages (huge
> > page?) are supported.
>
> Yes
>
> > Then, the "entry" sounds like a physical (v.s. "logical") table
> > entry, e.g. a PTE that we usually say?
>
> I choose entry because it is related to PTE and in most cases you want
> to work on the entries. The replication of entry to item is somewhat
> hidden.
>
> From a HW perspective the TLB should be loading entries.
In that case, "entry" should be a single "physical" element v.s.
"logical", right? Because that's what HW/TLB physically loads.
> > > +#if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GENERIC_ATOMIC64)
> > > +static inline bool pt_table_install64(struct pt_state *pts, u64
> > > table_entry)
> > > +{
> > > + u64 *entryp = pt_cur_table(pts, u64) + pts->index;
> > > + u64 old_entry = pts->entry;
> > > + bool ret;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Ensure the zero'd table content itself is visible before its PTE can
> > > + * be. release is a NOP on !SMP, but the HW is still doing an acquire.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP))
> > > + dma_wmb();
> >
> > Mind elaborating why SMP doesn't need this?
>
> The command says the "relase is a NOP" it means this:
>
> ret = try_cmpxchg64_release(entryp, &old_entry, table_entry);
>
> On SMP release does an actual release, on UP it doesn't have a
> barrier.
I see. I found that on !SMP, smp_mb() is barrier() v.s. mb(). I
suppose that differs between a compiler one and hardware one.
Thanks
Nicolin
