Re: [PATCH 2/6] arm64/mm: Enable memory hot remove

[Steven Price]

On 03/04/2019 13:37, Robin Murphy wrote:
> [ +Steve ]
> 
> Hi Anshuman,
> 
> On 03/04/2019 05:30, Anshuman Khandual wrote:

<snip>

>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index de70c1e..858098e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -355,6 +355,18 @@ static inline int pmd_protnone(pmd_t pmd)
>> Â }
>> Â #endif
>> Â +#if (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 2)
>> +#define pmd_large(pmd)ÂÂÂ (pmd_val(pmd) && !(pmd_val(pmd) &
>> PMD_TABLE_BIT))
>> +#else
>> +#define pmd_large(pmd) 0
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +#if (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 3)
>> +#define pud_large(pud)ÂÂÂ (pud_val(pud) && !(pud_val(pud) &
>> PUD_TABLE_BIT))
>> +#else
>> +#define pud_large(pmd) 0
>> +#endif
> 
> These seem rather different from the versions that Steve is proposing in
> the generic pagewalk series - can you reach an agreement on which
> implementation is preferred?

Indeed this doesn't match the version in my series although is quite
similar.

My desire is that p?d_large represents the hardware architectural
definition of large page/huge page/section (pick your naming). Although
now I look more closely this is actually broken in my series (I'll fix
that up and send a new version shortly) - p?d_sect() is similarly
conditional.

Is there a good reason not to use the existing p?d_sect() macros
available on arm64?

I'm also surprised by the CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVEL conditions as they don't
match the existing conditions for p?d_sect(). Might be worth double
checking it actually does what you expect.

Steve