Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: huge_memory: use folio_skip_prot_numa() for pmd folio

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 15.10.25 11:21, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2025/10/15 15:30, Dev Jain wrote:
>>
>> On 14/10/25 5:03 pm, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>> Rename prot_numa_skip() to folio_skip_prot_numa(), and remove
>>> ret by directly return value instead of goto style.
>>>
>>> The folio skip checks for prot numa should be suitable for pmd
>>> folio too, which helps to avoid unnecessary pmd change and folio
>>> migration attempts.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@oracle.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>>
>> In the review of my mprotect pte batching series, reviewers had
>> noted that the branch "if (folio_use_access_time(folio))" in
>> folio_skip_prot_numa() did not belong there - it should be done
>> outside of the function. But I see that that would duplicate a line
>> now that this function has two users. So in light of that, would you
>> mind changing the name of this function to
>> folio_skip_or_process_prot_numa()?
>>
> 
> The name is a bit long, and it only update access_time not change the
> pte, so maybe we leave it as is?

Any such name might make the return value weird (which indicates whether 
to skip) I'm afraid.

We could invert the meaning and call it something like

	folio_apply_prot_numa()

And return whether we have to protect it.

Maybe that's better? Other naming suggestions welcome :)

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb