From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 362B53596D for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 04:51:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.189 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756183892; cv=none; b=mrdrmhKTk0y2vKFGu+i+dpn2twYM9NaPXCUU77Njz1nr7NkMWPd05Puka6TVCi7Yg828oojv1e6kHZtw4EQ3bIhdCG58cbJlWew3q36hLK/DgpBBy1oSG49K9aC1ZzdJ1nQDRXl5L4Cj1thFvfIfV8J710kGHx5m0upGcPDAPFY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756183892; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TOzkz+3eBj6nlOwHuRm3lefgkGtuc/V//QAGyw+ywYQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=SrsIgtkzEbiBGqD33W503EVJCxKlmbfdiv2q3tcMcGwmYitgvLh+y3rhnW4Z/HsLCQ4SxX4gciJ9TX2L8R5NNbJq/tvcHp7ZHLIrYudXs2xk7RmRO0YuhTb9WAMusAKl1vqBPBBMm/ELVqcarMQhptcHv7hq3gdRYw8VlbFp724= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.189 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.105]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4c9w9p20mBzdcDr; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 12:46:54 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf200018.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.31]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB6621402E9; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 12:51:19 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.176.250] (10.174.176.250) by dggpemf200018.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 12:51:18 +0800 Message-ID: <464f9f46-6ed5-4a78-8e06-878869f2afc4@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 12:51:17 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] mm/damon/paddr: support addr_unit for DAMOS_PAGEOUT To: SeongJae Park CC: , , , , , , , kernel test robot References: <20250826032144.49491-1-sj@kernel.org> From: Quanmin Yan In-Reply-To: <20250826032144.49491-1-sj@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems500001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.70) To dggpemf200018.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.31) Hi SJ, 在 2025/8/26 11:21, SeongJae Park 写道: > [...] > >>> ==== Attachment 0 (0001-mm-damon-paddr-use-do_div-on-i386-for-damon_pa_pageo.patch) ==== >>> From hackermail Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 >>> From: SeongJae Park >>> To: Andrew Morton >>> Cc: SeongJae Park >>> Cc: damon@lists.linux.dev >>> Cc: kernel-team@meta.com >>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org >>> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 07:41:33 -0700 >>> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] mm/damon/paddr: use do_div() on i386 for damon_pa_pageout() >>> return value >>> >>> Otherwise, __udidi3 linking problem happens on certain configs. >>> >>> Reported-by: kernel test robot >>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202508241831.EKwdwXZL-lkp@intel.com/ >>> Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park >>> --- >>> mm/damon/paddr.c | 14 +++++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/mm/damon/paddr.c b/mm/damon/paddr.c >>> index 5fad2f9a99a0..09c87583af6c 100644 >>> --- a/mm/damon/paddr.c >>> +++ b/mm/damon/paddr.c >>> @@ -135,6 +135,18 @@ static bool damon_pa_invalid_damos_folio(struct folio *folio, struct damos *s) >>> return false; >>> } >>> >>> +/* convert physical address to core-layer address */ >>> +static unsigned long damon_pa_core_addr(phys_addr_t pa, >>> + unsigned long addr_unit) >>> +{ >>> +#ifdef __i386__ >> Can we use the following condition instead? >> >> #if !defined(CONFIG_64BIT) && defined(CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT) > To my understanding, this issue happens only on i386, not every 32bit > architectures. So I think i386 specific condition is better. I understand. However, the aforementioned general condition is essential, and we should propose a new patch to address this. After introducing addr_unit, any 32-bit architecture should support monitoring of 64-bit phys_addr_t. What do you think should be our next step? Looking forward to your reply. Thanks, Quanmin Yan [...]