[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <703cbee6-a813-4970-9232-34ee91ed8961@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2025 09:20:57 +0100
From: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>
To: 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 Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"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>,
"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Venkat Rao Bagalkote <venkat88@...ux.ibm.com>,
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 v5 08/12] mm: enable lazy_mmu sections to nest
On 28/11/2025 14:55, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
>> + * in_lazy_mmu_mode() can be used to check whether the lazy MMU mode is
>> + * currently enabled.
> The in_lazy_mmu_mode() name looks ambiguous to me. When the lazy MMU mode
> is paused are we still in lazy MMU mode? The __task_lazy_mmu_mode_active()
> implementation suggests we are not, while one could still assume we are,
> just paused.
>
> Should in_lazy_mmu_mode() be named e.g. as in_active_lazy_mmu_mode() such
> a confusion would not occur in the first place.
I see your point, how about is_lazy_mmu_mode_active()?
- Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists