[PATCH RFC 04/12] mm: Introduce vma_pgtable_walk_{begin|end}()

Peter Xu posted 12 patches 2 years, 1 month ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH RFC 04/12] mm: Introduce vma_pgtable_walk_{begin|end}()
Posted by Peter Xu 2 years, 1 month ago
Introduce per-vma begin()/end() helpers for pgtable walks.  This is a
preparation work to merge hugetlb pgtable walkers with generic mm.

The helpers need to be called before and after a pgtable walk, will start
to be needed if the pgtable walker code supports hugetlb pages.  It's a
hook point for any type of VMA, but for now only hugetlb uses it to
stablize the pgtable pages from getting away (due to possible pmd
unsharing).

Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
---
 include/linux/mm.h |  3 +++
 mm/memory.c        | 12 ++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
index 64cd1ee4aacc..349232dd20fb 100644
--- a/include/linux/mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/mm.h
@@ -4154,4 +4154,7 @@ static inline bool pfn_is_unaccepted_memory(unsigned long pfn)
 	return range_contains_unaccepted_memory(paddr, paddr + PAGE_SIZE);
 }
 
+void vma_pgtable_walk_begin(struct vm_area_struct *vma);
+void vma_pgtable_walk_end(struct vm_area_struct *vma);
+
 #endif /* _LINUX_MM_H */
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index e27e2e5beb3f..3a6434b40d87 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -6180,3 +6180,15 @@ void ptlock_free(struct ptdesc *ptdesc)
 	kmem_cache_free(page_ptl_cachep, ptdesc->ptl);
 }
 #endif
+
+void vma_pgtable_walk_begin(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
+{
+	if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma))
+		hugetlb_vma_lock_read(vma);
+}
+
+void vma_pgtable_walk_end(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
+{
+	if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma))
+		hugetlb_vma_unlock_read(vma);
+}
-- 
2.41.0
Re: [PATCH RFC 04/12] mm: Introduce vma_pgtable_walk_{begin|end}()
Posted by Christoph Hellwig 2 years, 1 month ago
Looks good:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Re: [PATCH RFC 04/12] mm: Introduce vma_pgtable_walk_{begin|end}()
Posted by Peter Xu 2 years, 1 month ago
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:24:26PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Looks good:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

One thing I'd prefer double check is this email in the R-b is different
from From:.  Should I always use lst.de for either tags and CCs for my
future versions?  Let me know if that matters.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu