Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] mm: introduce local state for lazy_mmu sections

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 09.09.25 11:40, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 11:07:36AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 08.09.25 09:39, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>>> arch_{enter,leave}_lazy_mmu_mode() currently have a stateless API
>>> (taking and returning no value). This is proving problematic in
>>> situations where leave() needs to restore some context back to its
>>> original state (before enter() was called). In particular, this
>>> makes it difficult to support the nesting of lazy_mmu sections -
>>> leave() does not know whether the matching enter() call occurred
>>> while lazy_mmu was already enabled, and whether to disable it or
>>> not.
>>>
>>> This patch gives all architectures the chance to store local state
>>> while inside a lazy_mmu section by making enter() return some value,
>>> storing it in a local variable, and having leave() take that value.
>>> That value is typed lazy_mmu_state_t - each architecture defining
>>> __HAVE_ARCH_ENTER_LAZY_MMU_MODE is free to define it as it sees fit.
>>> For now we define it as int everywhere, which is sufficient to
>>> support nesting.
> ...
>>> {
>>> + lazy_mmu_state_t lazy_mmu_state;
>>> ...
>>> - arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>> + lazy_mmu_state = arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>> ...
>>> - arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>> + arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode(lazy_mmu_state);
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> * In a few cases (e.g. xen_flush_lazy_mmu()), a function knows that
>>>     lazy_mmu is already enabled, and it temporarily disables it by
>>>     calling leave() and then enter() again. Here we want to ensure
>>>     that any operation between the leave() and enter() calls is
>>>     completed immediately; for that reason we pass LAZY_MMU_DEFAULT to
>>>     leave() to fully disable lazy_mmu. enter() will then re-enable it
>>>     - this achieves the expected behaviour, whether nesting occurred
>>>     before that function was called or not.
>>>
>>> Note: it is difficult to provide a default definition of
>>> lazy_mmu_state_t for architectures implementing lazy_mmu, because
>>> that definition would need to be available in
>>> arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h and adding a new generic
>>>    #include there is very tricky due to the existing header soup.
>>
>> Yeah, I was wondering about exactly that.
>>
>> In particular because LAZY_MMU_DEFAULT etc resides somewehere compeltely
>> different.
>>
>> Which raises the question: is using a new type really of any benefit here?
>>
>> Can't we just use an "enum lazy_mmu_state" and call it a day?
> 
> I could envision something completely different for this type on s390,
> e.g. a pointer to a per-cpu structure. So I would really ask to stick
> with the current approach.

Would that integrate well with LAZY_MMU_DEFAULT etc?

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb