From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D70F3ECBCF for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 06:54:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784012064; cv=none; b=E1hm6W21IpR0oFO81/5Qt1AMgbu42kQLwOXk5CRyhIXmSRaj4mC7VcQ1IIGkm/ntDo2i9BvuqbyUHY2yqlNJ2VxFbBECaVrS9u15CLi5JpAt4sxdHhf5V3DAhW9cwKkqUDca/uxsLXhKIc1JOV9UkeAy24Hlpx0EKTnE5UJsrYw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784012064; c=relaxed/simple; bh=in4ByyebPfi3733abQ4MFG3t3pXhYQ74bHn20MaCl14=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ObEHiYlKXATk4H90T/pYmRxxQe5lhexdVGJibo0xvhtsI3lXaiEKuwNo8SKFP1yZcNRWyUu6f27CieBFrkknVfWmxDNaldtlLzJbRW7MUpMH8mGfs0xK7IUkKDJMveMJ2Bh47UJs2AdObs9ktNcZDFYlPPUr4A6FIyHHk9slu3g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b=U9B78wj6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b="U9B78wj6" Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A571477; Mon, 13 Jul 2026 23:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.174.43.51] (unknown [10.174.43.51]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C74A3F7B4; Mon, 13 Jul 2026 23:54:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1784012061; bh=in4ByyebPfi3733abQ4MFG3t3pXhYQ74bHn20MaCl14=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=U9B78wj6W/NS4Oma+YkQO132UMhYDvp3jnpulHZsE9DTZHXSrHRmg24/qJTamec1V UZR4BXyKuMC+1huPYshYfSBS6XkvHzvkGmxYd9kGDKcVGq2I5DyArZHpu3UUZZoaby Cf5vrBTOV1clKaI6jS04gJMWblJxF9Sg6G9ZnFAU= Message-ID: <4b3c1d3f-853d-46dc-bb15-37273fb07f61@arm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 12:24:09 +0530 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 v6 1/6] arm64/hugetlb: Extend batching of multiple CONT_PTE in a single PTE setup To: Wen Jiang , akpm@linux-foundation.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, urezki@gmail.com, will@kernel.org Cc: Xueyuan.chen21@gmail.com, ajd@linux.ibm.com, david@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rppt@kernel.org, ryan.roberts@arm.com, dev.jain@arm.com, "Barry Song (Xiaomi)" , Wen Jiang , Leo Yan References: <20260709073823.6643-1-jiangwen6@xiaomi.com> <20260709073823.6643-2-jiangwen6@xiaomi.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Anshuman Khandual In-Reply-To: <20260709073823.6643-2-jiangwen6@xiaomi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/07/26 1:08 PM, Wen Jiang wrote: > From: "Barry Song (Xiaomi)" > > For sizes aligned to CONT_PTE_SIZE and smaller than PMD_SIZE, > we can handle CONT_PTE_SIZE groups together. > > Signed-off-by: Barry Song (Xiaomi) > Signed-off-by: Wen Jiang > Tested-by: Xueyuan Chen > Tested-by: Leo Yan > Reviewed-by: Dev Jain > --- > arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c > index a42c05cf56408..0da746f729388 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c > @@ -110,6 +110,12 @@ static inline int num_contig_ptes(unsigned long size, size_t *pgsize) > contig_ptes = CONT_PTES; > break; > default: > + if (size > 0 && size < PMD_SIZE && Is there a possibility for size <= 0 ? If not then the above conditional check might be redundant. > + IS_ALIGNED(size, CONT_PTE_SIZE)) { > + *pgsize = PAGE_SIZE; > + contig_ptes = size >> PAGE_SHIFT; > + break; > + } > WARN_ON(!__hugetlb_valid_size(size)); Would not these CONT_PTE_SIZE aligned sizes upto PMD_SIZE trigger warning here because __hugetlb_valid_size() still does not enumerate them ? > } > > @@ -359,6 +365,10 @@ pte_t arch_make_huge_pte(pte_t entry, unsigned int shift, vm_flags_t flags) > case CONT_PTE_SIZE: > return pte_mkcont(entry); > default: > + if (pagesize > 0 && pagesize < PMD_SIZE && > + IS_ALIGNED(pagesize, CONT_PTE_SIZE)) > + return pte_mkcont(entry); > + > break; > } > pr_warn("%s: unrecognized huge page size 0x%lx\n",