On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 09:48:14AM -0600, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 10:52:17AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 06:16:16PM -0600, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:27:38AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > > > index 2e49bd2..4811ef1 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > > > @@ -61,10 +61,6 @@ static int find_num_contig(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > > unsigned long addr,
> > > > return 1;
> > > > }
> > > > pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
> > > > - if (!pmd_present(*pmd)) {
> > > > - VM_BUG_ON(!pmd_present(*pmd));
> > > > - return 1;
> > > > - }
> > > > if ((pte_t *)pmd == ptep) {
> > > > *pgsize = PMD_SIZE;
> > > > return CONT_PMDS;
> > >
> > > BTW, for the !pud_present() and !pgd_present() cases, shouldn't
> > > find_num_contig() actually return 0? These are more likely real bugs, so
> > > no point in setting the huge pte.
> >
> > The kernel will not call the find_num_contig() if the PGD/PUD are empty.
> > Please see the code in the hugetlb_fault().
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > ptep = huge_pte_offset(mm, address);
> > if (ptep) {
> > ...............................
> > } else {
> > ptep = huge_pte_alloc(mm, address, huge_page_size(h));
> > if (!ptep)
> > return VM_FAULT_OOM;
> > }
> > ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Exactly. So what is the reason for returning 1 if !pgd_present()? Would
I think the author was too cautious for returning 1 if !pgd_present().
:)
> removing the checks entirely or adding BUG() be a better option?
I will remove the checks in the next version.
Thanks
Huang Shijie
