Re: Replacing walk_page_range

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 09.08.23 15:09, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 09:35:01AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 08.08.23 19:09, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> Sid was incautious enough to say he'd like to take on fixing
>>> walk_page_range() so that hugetlb isn't treated specially.  This is
>>> going to subject him to one of my rants, so I thought I'd share with
>>> everyone before we meet to talk about it later today.
>>
>> Are we only talking about walk_page_range() or also walk_page_range_vma() /
>> walk_page_vma() ?
>>
>> I tend to like the VMA variants ...
> 
> We're talking about getting rid of mm_walk_ops.  There aren't exactly a
> lot of callers of either of those functions -- 4 of walk_page_vma()
> and 1 of walk_page_range_vma().

Okay, I see. For some use cases, it's probably sufficient to walk folios.

But we do have some advanced users like fs/proc/task_mmu.c.

[I do have two more follow_page() -> walk_page_range_vma() conversions 
lying around here; they want to also know if a page is mapped writable]

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb