On 12.02.24 15:10, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 12/02/2024 12:14, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 02.02.24 09:07, Ryan Roberts wrote:
The goal is to be able to advance a PTE by an arbitrary number of PFNs.
So introduce a new API that takes a nr param.
We are going to remove pte_next_pfn() and replace it with
pte_advance_pfn(). As a first step, implement pte_next_pfn() as a
wrapper around pte_advance_pfn() so that we can incrementally switch the
architectures over. Once all arches are moved over, we will change all
the core-mm callers to call pte_advance_pfn() directly and remove the
wrapper.
Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/pgtable.h | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
index 5e7eaf8f2b97..815d92dcb96b 100644
--- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
+++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
@@ -214,9 +214,15 @@ static inline int pmd_dirty(pmd_t pmd)
#ifndef pte_next_pfn
+#ifndef pte_advance_pfn
+static inline pte_t pte_advance_pfn(pte_t pte, unsigned long nr)
+{
+ return __pte(pte_val(pte) + (nr << PFN_PTE_SHIFT));
+}
+#endif
static inline pte_t pte_next_pfn(pte_t pte)
{
- return __pte(pte_val(pte) + (1UL << PFN_PTE_SHIFT));
+ return pte_advance_pfn(pte, 1);
}
#endif
I do wonder if we simply want to leave pte_next_pfn() around? Especially patch
#4, #6 don't really benefit from the change? So are the other set_ptes()
implementations.
That is, only convert all pte_next_pfn()->pte_advance_pfn(), and leave a
pte_next_pfn() macro in place.
Any downsides to that?
The downside is just having multiple functions that effectively do the same
thing. Personally I think its cleaner and easier to understand the code with
just one generic function which we pass 1 to it where we only want to advance by
1. In the end, there are only a couple of places where pte_advance_pfn(1) is
used, so doesn't really seem valuable to me to maintain a specialization.
Well, not really functions, just a macro. Like we have set_pte_at()
translating to set_ptes().
Arguably, we have more callers of set_pte_at().
"Easier to understand", I don't know. :)
Unless you feel strongly that we need to keep pte_next_pfn() then I'd prefer to
leave it as I've done in this series.
Well, it makes you patch set shorter and there is less code churn.
So personally, I'd just leave pte_next_pfn() in there. But whatever you
prefer, not the end of the world.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
