On 17.07.25 21:55, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 08:51:51PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
@@ -721,37 +772,21 @@ struct page *vm_normal_page_pmd(struct vm_area_struct 
*vma, unsigned long addr,
                print_bad_page_map(vma, addr, pmd_val(pmd), NULL);
                return NULL;
        }
-
-       if (unlikely(vma->vm_flags & (VM_PFNMAP|VM_MIXEDMAP))) {
-               if (vma->vm_flags & VM_MIXEDMAP) {
-                       if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
-                               return NULL;
-                       goto out;
-               } else {
-                       unsigned long off;
-                       off = (addr - vma->vm_start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
-                       if (pfn == vma->vm_pgoff + off)
-                               return NULL;
-                       if (!is_cow_mapping(vma->vm_flags))
-                               return NULL;
-               }
-       }
-
-       if (is_huge_zero_pfn(pfn))
-               return NULL;
-       if (unlikely(pfn > highest_memmap_pfn)) {
-               print_bad_page_map(vma, addr, pmd_val(pmd), NULL);
-               return NULL;
-       }
-
-       /*
-        * NOTE! We still have PageReserved() pages in the page tables.
-        * eg. VDSO mappings can cause them to exist.
-        */
-out:
-       return pfn_to_page(pfn);
+       return vm_normal_page_pfn(vma, addr, pfn, pmd_val(pmd));

Hmm this seems broken, because you're now making these special on arches with
pte_special() right? But then you're invoking the not-special function?

Also for non-pte_special() arches you're kind of implying they _maybe_ could be
special.

OK sorry the diff caught me out here, you explicitly handle the pmd_special()
case here, duplicatively (yuck).

Maybe you fix this up in a later patch :)

I had that, but the conditions depend on the level, meaning: unnecessary checks for pte/pmd/pud level.

I had a variant where I would pass "bool special" into vm_normal_page_pfn(), but I didn't like it.

To optimize out, I would have to provide a "level" argument, and did not convince myself yet that that is a good idea at this point.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb


Reply via email to