On 06.06.24 05:40, Barry Song wrote:
From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
This patch introduces the pte_need_soft_dirty_wp and
pmd_need_soft_dirty_wp helpers to determine if write protection is
required for softdirty tracking. This can enhance code readability
and improve its overall appearance.
These new helpers are utilized in gup, huge_memory, and protect,
and are particularly applied in do_swap_page() to optimize a
softdirty scenario where mkwrite can still be performed.
[...]
+static inline bool pmd_need_soft_dirty_wp(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t pmd)
+{
+ return vma_soft_dirty_enabled(vma) && !pmd_soft_dirty(pmd);
+}
+
+static inline bool pte_need_soft_dirty_wp(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pte_t pte)
+{
+ return vma_soft_dirty_enabled(vma) && !pte_soft_dirty(pte);
+}
+
Should these be "needs" ? I tend to like these names/semantics.
static inline void vma_iter_config(struct vma_iterator *vmi,
unsigned long index, unsigned long last)
{
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index db9130488231..6307c43796aa 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -4322,7 +4322,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
if (!folio_test_ksm(folio) &&
(exclusive || folio_ref_count(folio) == 1)) {
if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) && !userfaultfd_pte_wp(vma, pte) &&
- !vma_soft_dirty_enabled(vma)) {
+ !pte_need_soft_dirty_wp(vma, pte)) {
pte = pte_mkwrite(pte, vma);
I would move that into a separate patch, as it's not a simple conversion.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
