[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v5 08/12] mm: enable lazy_mmu sections to nest
- To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx>, Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@xxxxxxx>, Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 12:53:18 +0100
- Cc: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andreas Larsson <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx>, Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@xxxxxxxxx>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Venkat Rao Bagalkote <venkat88@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>, Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>, Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@xxxxxxx>, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Dec 2025 11:53:35 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 12/4/25 06:25, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 03/12/25 1:50 PM, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
On 28/11/2025 14:55, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
+ * in_lazy_mmu_mode() can be used to check whether the lazy MMU mode is
+ * currently enabled.
The in_lazy_mmu_mode() name looks ambiguous to me. When the lazy MMU mode
is paused are we still in lazy MMU mode? The __task_lazy_mmu_mode_active()
implementation suggests we are not, while one could still assume we are,
just paused.
Should in_lazy_mmu_mode() be named e.g. as in_active_lazy_mmu_mode() such
a confusion would not occur in the first place.
I see your point, how about is_lazy_mmu_mode_active()?
Agreed - is_lazy_mmu_mode_active() seems better.
+1, I was scratching my head over this in previous revisions as well.
--
Cheers
David
|
