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
