On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 11:52:41AM +0200, Artemy Kovalyov wrote:
>
>
> On 02/03/2019 21:44, Ira Weiny wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 12:24:35PM -0800, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > From: John Hubbard <jhubb...@nvidia.com>
> > >
> > > ...
> > > 3. Dead code removal: the check for (user_virt & ~page_mask)
> > > is checking for a condition that can never happen,
> > > because earlier:
> > >
> > > user_virt = user_virt & page_mask;
> > >
> > > ...so, remove that entire phrase.
> > >
> > > bcnt -= min_t(size_t, npages << PAGE_SHIFT, bcnt);
> > > mutex_lock(&umem_odp->umem_mutex);
> > > for (j = 0; j < npages; j++, user_virt += PAGE_SIZE) {
> > > - if (user_virt & ~page_mask) {
> > > - p += PAGE_SIZE;
> > > - if (page_to_phys(local_page_list[j]) != p) {
> > > - ret = -EFAULT;
> > > - break;
> > > - }
> > > - put_page(local_page_list[j]);
> > > - continue;
> > > - }
> > > -
> >
> > I think this is trying to account for compound pages. (ie page_mask could
> > represent more than PAGE_SIZE which is what user_virt is being incrimented
> > by.)
> > But putting the page in that case seems to be the wrong thing to do?
> >
> > Yes this was added by Artemy[1] now cc'ed.
>
> Right, this is for huge pages, please keep it.
> put_page() needed to decrement refcount of the head page.
You mean decrement the refcount of the _non_-head pages?
Ira
>
