Message-ID: <73b274b7-f419-4e2e-8620-d557bac30dc2@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 21:52:49 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
 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, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/13] mm: introduce generic lazy_mmu helpers

On 15.10.25 10:27, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> The implementation of the lazy MMU mode is currently entirely
> arch-specific; core code directly calls arch helpers:
> arch_{enter,leave}_lazy_mmu_mode().
> 
> We are about to introduce support for nested lazy MMU sections.
> As things stand we'd have to duplicate that logic in every arch
> implementing lazy_mmu - adding to a fair amount of logic
> already duplicated across lazy_mmu implementations.
> 
> This patch therefore introduces a new generic layer that calls the
> existing arch_* helpers. Two pair of calls are introduced:
> 
> * lazy_mmu_mode_enable() ... lazy_mmu_mode_disable()
>      This is the standard case where the mode is enabled for a given
>      block of code by surrounding it with enable() and disable()
>      calls.
> 
> * lazy_mmu_mode_pause() ... lazy_mmu_mode_resume()
>      This is for situations where the mode is temporarily disabled
>      by first calling pause() and then resume() (e.g. to prevent any
>      batching from occurring in a critical section).
> 
> The documentation in <linux/pgtable.h> will be updated in a
> subsequent patch.
> 
> No functional change should be introduced at this stage.
> The implementation of enable()/resume() and disable()/pause() is
> currently identical, but nesting support will change that.
> 
> Most of the call sites have been updated using the following
> Coccinelle script:
> 
> @@
> @@
> {
> ...
> - arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> + lazy_mmu_mode_enable();
> ...
> - arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> + lazy_mmu_mode_disable();
> ...
> }
> 
> @@
> @@
> {
> ...
> - arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> + lazy_mmu_mode_pause();
> ...
> - arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> + lazy_mmu_mode_resume();
> ...
> }
> 
> A couple of cases are noteworthy:
> 
> * madvise_*_pte_range() call arch_leave() in multiple paths, some
>    followed by an immediate exit/rescheduling and some followed by a
>    conditional exit. These functions assume that they are called
>    with lazy MMU disabled and we cannot simply use pause()/resume()
>    to address that. This patch leaves the situation unchanged by
>    calling enable()/disable() in all cases.

I'm confused, the function simply does

(a) enables lazy mmu
(b) does something on the page table
(c) disables lazy mmu
(d) does something expensive (split folio -> take sleepable locks,
     flushes tlb)
(e) go to (a)

Why would we use enable/disable instead?

> 
> * x86/Xen is currently the only case where explicit handling is
>    required for lazy MMU when context-switching. This is purely an
>    implementation detail and using the generic lazy_mmu_mode_*
>    functions would cause trouble when nesting support is introduced,
>    because the generic functions must be called from the current task.
>    For that reason we still use arch_leave() and arch_enter() there.

How does this interact with patch #11?

> 
> Note: x86 calls arch_flush_lazy_mmu_mode() unconditionally in a few
> places, but only defines it if PARAVIRT_XXL is selected, and we are
> removing the fallback in <linux/pgtable.h>. Add a new fallback
> definition to <asm/pgtable.h> to keep things building.

I can see a call in __kernel_map_pages() and 
arch_kmap_local_post_map()/arch_kmap_local_post_unmap().

I guess that is ... harmless/irrelevant in the context of this series?

[...]


-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists