On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 11:33 PM Alexander Gordeev
<agordeev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I rather have a question to the generic part (had to master the code quotting).
Sure.
Although now I think the series in in Andrew's -mm tree, or just about
to get moved in there, so I'm not going to touch my actual branch any
more.
> > static void clean_and_free_pages_and_swap_cache(struct encoded_page **pages, unsigned int nr)
> > {
> > for (unsigned int i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> > struct encoded_page *encoded = pages[i];
> > unsigned int flags = encoded_page_flags(encoded);
> > if (flags) {
> > /* Clean the flagged pointer in-place */
> > struct page *page = encoded_page_ptr(encoded);
> > pages[i] = encode_page(page, 0);
> >
> > /* The flag bit being set means that we should zap the rmap */
>
> Why TLB_ZAP_RMAP bit is not checked explicitly here, like in s390 version?
> (I assume, when/if ENCODE_PAGE_BITS is not TLB_ZAP_RMAP only, calling
> page_zap_pte_rmap() without such a check would be a bug).
No major reason. This is basically the same issue as the naming, which
I touched on in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wiDg_1up8K4PhK4+kzPN7xJG297=nw+tvgrGn7aVgZdqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
and the follow-up note about how I hope the "encoded page pointer with
flags" thing gets used by the mlock code some day too.
IOW, there's kind of a generic "I have extra flags associated with the
pointer", and then the specific "this case uses this flag", and
depending on which mindset you have at the time, you might do one or
the other.
So in that clean_and_free_pages_and_swap_cache(), the code basically
knows "I have a pointer with extra flags", and it's written that way.
And that's partly historical, because it actually started with the
original code tracking the dirty bit as the extra piece of
information, and then transformed into this "no, the information is
TLB_ZAP_RMAP".
So "unsigned int flags" at one point was "bool dirty" instead, but
then became more of a "I think this whole page pointer with flags is
general", and the naming changed, and I had both cases in mind, and
then the code is perhaps not so specifically named. I'm not sure the
zap_page_range() case will ever use more than one flag, but the mlock
case already has two different flags. So the "encode_page" thing is
very much written to be about more than just the zap_page_range()
case.
But yes, that code could (and maybe should) use "if (flags &
TLB_ZAP_RMAP)" to make it clear that in this case, the single flags
bit is that one bit.
But the "if ()" there actually does two conceptually *separate*
things: it needs to clean the pointer in-place (which is regardless of
"which" flag bit is set, and then it does that page_zap_pte_rmap(),
which is just for the TLB_ZAP_RMAP bit.
So to be really explicit about it, you'd have two different tests: one
for "do I have flags that need to be cleaned up" and then an inner
test for each flag. And since there is only one flag in this
particular use case, it's essentially that inner test that I dropped
as pointless.
In contrast, in the s390 version, that bit was never encoded as a a
general "flags associated with a page pointer" in the first place, so
there was never any such duality. There is only TLB_ZAP_RMAP.
Hope that explains the thinking.
Linus
