[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f9b0bf10-a531-484e-9679-08ec25ceb444@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 17:02:34 +0200
From: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Borislav Petkov
<bp@...en8.de>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, "Liam R. Howlett"
<Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Thomas Gleixner
<tglx@...utronix.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] mm: introduce local state for lazy_mmu sections
On 12/09/2025 16:25, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>>
>> But I do not really expect it ever, since arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode_pte()
>> is only to be called in PTE walkers that never span more than one page
>> table and follow the pattern:
>
> Well, the cover letter here states:
>
> "Unfortunately, a corner case (DEBUG_PAGEALLOC) may still cause
> nesting to occur on arm64. Ryan proposed [2] to address that corner
> case at the generic level but this approach received pushback; [3]
> then attempted to solve the issue on arm64 only, but it was deemed too
> fragile."
>
> So I guess we should support nesting cleanly, at least on the core-mm
> side.
Nesting remains a rare occurrence though. I think it would be plausible
to require this new interface to be used in a region where no nesting
can occur, just like pause()/resume().
In fact, I think this is a requirement if we go for the approach we have
been discussing, because nested enter()/leave() calls are not meant to
call arch_enter()/arch_leave(), and I really wouldn't want to use a
different logic for this variant.
>
> I guess we could start with saying "well, s390x doesn't fully support
> nesting yet but doing so just requires changing the way we manage this
> per-nesting-level state internally".
>
> s390 is trying to do something different than the other archs here, so
> that naturally concerns me :)
>
> But if it's really just about forwarding that data and having s390
> store it somewhere (task_struct, percpu variable, etc), fine with me.
Yes I think this is fine, with the restriction above. The extra
arguments are directly forwarded to arch code and otherwise ignored by
core code, and unless the arch defines some __HAVE_ARCH... or CONFIG,
the extended interface falls back to regular enter()/leave().
- Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists