Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] x86/vmemmap: Handle unpopulated sub-pmd ranges

[Oscar Salvador]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 07:43:30PM +0100, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 09:02:36AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > Also, logically, it would make a lot of sense if you can move the actual
> > PMD freeing logic in here.  That way, the caller is just saying, "unuse
> > this PMD region", and then this takes care of the rest.  As it stands,
> > it's a bit weird that the caller takes care of the freeing.
> 
> You mean to move the 
> 
>  free_hugepage_table(pmd_page(*pmd), altmap);
>  spin_lock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
>  pmd_clear(pmd);
>  spin_unlock(&init_mm.page_table_lock);
> 
> block in there?
> 
> Well, from where I see it, it is more like:
> 
>  if (is_the_range_unused())
>   : if so, free everything
> 
> But I agree with you what it might make some sense to move it there.
> Since I do not feel strong about this, I will move it.

hi Dave,

So, after splitting this patch and re-shape it to address all the
feedback, I am still not sure about this one.
Honestly, I think the freeing logic would be better off kept in
remove_pmd_table.

The reason for me is that vmemmap_unuse_sub_pmd only 1) marks the range
to be removed as unused and 2) checks whether after that, the whole
PMD range is unused.

I think the confusion comes from the name.
"vmemmap_pmd_is_unused" might be a better fit?

What do you think? Do you feel strong about moving the log in there
regardless of the name?


-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3