On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 06:52:25PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 3/6/25 11:34, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > Finish refactoring the page table logic by threading the PMC state
> > throughout the operation, allowing us to control the operation as we go.
> >
> > Additionally, update the old_addr, new_addr fields in move_page_tables()
> > as we progress through the process making use of the fact we have this
> > state object now to track this.
> >
> > With these changes made, not only is the code far more readable, but we
> > can finally transmit state throughout the entire operation, which lays the
> > groundwork for sensibly making changes in future to how the mremap()
> > operation is performed.
> >
> > Additionally take the opportunity to refactor the means of determining the
> > progress of the operation, abstracting this to pmc_progress() and
> > simplifying the logic to make it clearer what's going on.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
Thanks!
>
> Small nit:
>
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Should move_pgt_entry() acquire the rmap locks? This is either expressed in
> > + * the PMC, or overridden in the case of normal, larger page tables.
> > + */
> > +static bool should_take_rmap_locks(struct pagetable_move_control *pmc,
> > + enum pgt_entry entry)
> > +{
> > + if (pmc->need_rmap_locks)
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + switch (entry) {
> > + case NORMAL_PMD:
> > + case NORMAL_PUD:
> > + return true;
> > + default:
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
>
> IMHO the "overriden" logic would be more obvious if we removed the initial
> "if" and just had default: return pmc->need_rmap_locks
Ack, agreed, will fix!
