linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] mm: split folio_pte_batch() into folio_pte_batch() and folio_pte_batch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aGT3QratnMhCZd46@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 11:09:22 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
	Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>,
	Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com>, Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul@...com>,
	Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>,
	Ying Huang <ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
	Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
	Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] mm: split folio_pte_batch() into
 folio_pte_batch() and folio_pte_batch_ext()

On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:55:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Many users (including upcoming ones) don't really need the flags etc,
> and can live with a function call.
> 
> So let's provide a basic, non-inlined folio_pte_batch().
> 
> In zap_present_ptes(), where we care about performance, the compiler
> already seem to generate a call to a common inlined folio_pte_batch()
> variant, shared with fork() code. So calling the new non-inlined variant
> should not make a difference.
> 
> While at it, drop the "addr" parameter that is unused.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>

FWIW, folio_pte_batch_flags seems more appealling to me as well.

Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>


-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs