Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:14:23 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 03/25] mm: Make pte_next_pfn() a wrapper around pte_advance_pfn() | From | David Hildenbrand <> |
| |
On 02.02.24 09:07, Ryan Roberts wrote: > The goal is to be able to advance a PTE by an arbitrary number of PFNs. > So introduce a new API that takes a nr param. > > We are going to remove pte_next_pfn() and replace it with > pte_advance_pfn(). As a first step, implement pte_next_pfn() as a > wrapper around pte_advance_pfn() so that we can incrementally switch the > architectures over. Once all arches are moved over, we will change all > the core-mm callers to call pte_advance_pfn() directly and remove the > wrapper. > > Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> > --- > include/linux/pgtable.h | 8 +++++++- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h > index 5e7eaf8f2b97..815d92dcb96b 100644 > --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h > +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h > @@ -214,9 +214,15 @@ static inline int pmd_dirty(pmd_t pmd) > > > #ifndef pte_next_pfn > +#ifndef pte_advance_pfn > +static inline pte_t pte_advance_pfn(pte_t pte, unsigned long nr) > +{ > + return __pte(pte_val(pte) + (nr << PFN_PTE_SHIFT)); > +} > +#endif > static inline pte_t pte_next_pfn(pte_t pte) > { > - return __pte(pte_val(pte) + (1UL << PFN_PTE_SHIFT)); > + return pte_advance_pfn(pte, 1); > } > #endif >
I do wonder if we simply want to leave pte_next_pfn() around? Especially patch #4, #6 don't really benefit from the change? So are the other set_ptes() implementations.
That is, only convert all pte_next_pfn()->pte_advance_pfn(), and leave a pte_next_pfn() macro in place.
Any downsides to that? This patch here would become:
#ifndef pte_advance_pfn static inline pte_t pte_advance_pfn(pte_t pte, unsigned long nr) { return __pte(pte_val(pte) + (nr << PFN_PTE_SHIFT)); } #endif
#ifndef pte_next_pfn #define pte_next_pfn(pte) pte_advance_pfn(pte, 1) #endif
As you convert the three arches, make them define pte_advance_pfn and udnefine pte_next_pfn. in the end, you can drop the #ifdef around pte_next_pfn here.
-- Cheers,
David / dhildenb
| |