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

[Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>]

On 2025/10/15 17:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 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 :)
> 

That's better, or folio_needs_prot_numa() as there are already some
similar names with folio_needs_ prefix ?