On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 03:46:53PM +0800, Yan Zhao wrote: > > > + goto retry; > > > + > > > + sp = NULL; > > > + /* > > > + * Set yielded in case after splitting to a lower level, > > > + * the new iter requires furter splitting. > > > + */ > > > + iter.yielded = true; > > > + *flush = true; > > > + } > > > + > > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > > + > > > + /* Leave it here though it should be impossible for the mirror root */ > > > + if (sp) > > > + tdp_mmu_free_sp(sp); > > > > What do you think about relying on tdp_mmu_split_huge_pages_root() and moving > > this to an optimization patch at the end? > > > > Or what about just two calls to tdp_mmu_split_huge_pages_root() at the > > boundaries? > Though the two generally look like the same, relying on > tdp_mmu_split_huge_pages_root() will create several minor changes scattering > in tdp_mmu_split_huge_pages_root(). > > e.g. update flush after tdp_mmu_iter_cond_resched(), check > iter_split_required(), set "iter.yielded = true". > > So, it may be hard to review as a initial RFC. > > I prefer to do that after Paolo and Sean have taken a look of it :) Oh, I might misunderstood your meaning. Yes, if necessary, we can provide a separate patch at the end to combine code of tdp_mmu_split_huge_pages_root() and tdp_mmu_split_boundary_leafs().
