Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm: make lazy MMU mode context-aware

[Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 10:55:23AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:

Hi David,

> > +/**
> > + * lazy_mmu_mode_enable_pte() - Enable the lazy MMU mode with parameters
> 
> You have to be a lot clearer about implications. For example, what
> happens if we would bail out and not process all ptes? What are the
> exact semantics.

The only implication is "only this address/PTE range could be updated
and that range may span one page table at most".

Whether all or portion of PTEs were actually updated is not defined,
just like in case of lazy_mmu_mode_enable_pte().

Makes sense?

> > + * Enters a new lazy MMU mode section; if the mode was not already enabled,
> > + * enables it and calls arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode_pte().
> > + *
> > + * Must be paired with a call to lazy_mmu_mode_disable().
> > + *
> > + * Has no effect if called:
> > + * - While paused - see lazy_mmu_mode_pause()
> > + * - In interrupt context
> > + */
> > +static inline void lazy_mmu_mode_enable_pte(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > +					    unsigned long addr,
> > +					    unsigned long end,
> > +					    pte_t *ptep)
> 
> It can be multiple ptes, so should this be some kind of "pte_range"/
> 
> lazy_mmu_mode_enable_for_pte_range()
> 
> A bit mouthful but clearer.
> 
> > +{
> > +	struct lazy_mmu_state *state = &current->lazy_mmu_state;
> > +
> > +	if (in_interrupt() || state->pause_count > 0)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(state->enable_count == U8_MAX);
> > +
> > +	if (state->enable_count++ == 0)
> > +		arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode_pte(mm, addr, end, ptep);

I will also change arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode_pte() to
arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode_for_pte_range() then.

> > +}
> 
> I'm wondering whether that could instead be some optional interface that
> we trigger after the lazy_mmu_mode_enable. But looking at

To me just two separate and (as you put it) mouthful names appeal better
than an optional follow-up interface.

> lazy_mmu_mode_enable() users, there don't seem to be cases where we
> would process multiple different ranges under a single enable() call, right?

Multiple different ranges still could be processed, but then one should
continue using arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode(). E.g. these were less obvious
than traditional walkers and left them intact:

	mm/migrate_device.c
	mm/tests/lazy_mmu_mode_kunit.c
	mm/userfaultfd.c
	mm/vmscan.c

> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> David

Thanks for the quick review!