On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:43:39 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.ku...@kernel.org>
wrote:
> > return (pud_val(pud) & (_PAGE_PSE|_PAGE_DEVMAP)) == _PAGE_PSE;
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_PUD
> > static inline int pud_devmap(pud_t pud)
> > {
> > return !!(pud_val(pud) & _PAGE_DEVMAP);
> > }
> > #else
> > static inline int pud_devmap(pud_t pud)
> > {
> > return 0;
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > We might need some more clarity on this regarding x86 platform's pud huge
> > page implementation.
> >
>
> static vm_fault_t create_huge_pud(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> {
> #if defined(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE) && \
> defined(CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_PUD)
> struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> /* No support for anonymous transparent PUD pages yet */
> if (vma_is_anonymous(vma))
> return VM_FAULT_FALLBACK;
> if (vma->vm_ops->huge_fault)
> return vma->vm_ops->huge_fault(vmf, PUD_ORDER);
> #endif /* CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE */
> return VM_FAULT_FALLBACK;
> }
cryptic reply, unreplied to.
What's the thinking here? Should we proceed with the patch as-is, or
are changes needed?
