Nouveau - May 2021 - [PATCH v8 1/8] mm: Remove special swap entry functions

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 06:42:31PM +1000, Alistair Popple
wrote:
> +static inline struct page *pfn_swap_entry_to_page(swp_entry_t entry)
> +{
> +	struct page *p = pfn_to_page(swp_offset(entry));
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Any use of migration entries may only occur while the
> +	 * corresponding page is locked
> +	 */
> +	BUG_ON(is_migration_entry(entry) && !PageLocked(p));
> +
> +	return p;
> +}
Would swap_pfn_entry_to_page() be slightly better?

The thing is it's very easy to read pfn_*() as a function to take a pfn as
parameter...

Since I'm also recently working on some swap-related new ptes [1], I'm
thinking
whether we could name these swap entries as "swap XXX entries".  Say,
"swap
hwpoison entry", "swap pfn entry" (which is a superset of
"swap migration
entry", "swap device exclusive entry", ...).  That's where I
came with the
above swap_pfn_entry_to_page(), then below will be naturally
is_swap_pfn_entry().

No strong opinion as this is already a v8 series (and sorry to chim in this
late), just to raise this up.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210427161317.50682-1-peterx at redhat.com/

Thanks,
> +
> +/*
> + * A pfn swap entry is a special type of swap entry that always has a pfn
stored
> + * in the swap offset. They are used to represent unaddressable device
memory
> + * and to restrict access to a page undergoing migration.
> + */
> +static inline bool is_pfn_swap_entry(swp_entry_t entry)
> +{
> +	return is_migration_entry(entry) || is_device_private_entry(entry);
> +}
-- 
Peter Xu

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 12:17:32 PM AEST Peter Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 06:42:31PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > +static inline struct page *pfn_swap_entry_to_page(swp_entry_t entry)
> > +{
> > +     struct page *p = pfn_to_page(swp_offset(entry));
> > +
> > +     /*
> > +      * Any use of migration entries may only occur while the
> > +      * corresponding page is locked
> > +      */
> > +     BUG_ON(is_migration_entry(entry) && !PageLocked(p));
> > +
> > +     return p;
> > +}
> 
> Would swap_pfn_entry_to_page() be slightly better?
> 
> The thing is it's very easy to read pfn_*() as a function to take a pfn
as
> parameter...
> 
> Since I'm also recently working on some swap-related new ptes [1],
I'm
> thinking whether we could name these swap entries as "swap XXX
entries".
> Say, "swap hwpoison entry", "swap pfn entry" (which is
a superset of "swap
> migration entry", "swap device exclusive entry", ...). 
That's where I came
> with the above swap_pfn_entry_to_page(), then below will be naturally
> is_swap_pfn_entry().
Equally though "hwpoison swap entry", "pfn swap entry",
"migration swap
entry", etc. also makes sense (at least to me), but does that not fit in as
well with your series? I haven't looked too deeply at your series but have 
been meaning to so thanks for the pointer.
> No strong opinion as this is already a v8 series (and sorry to chim in this
> late), just to raise this up.
No worries, it's good timing as I was about to send a v9 which was just a 
rebase anyway. I am hoping to try and get this accepted for the next merge 
window but I will wait before sending v9 to see if anyone else has thoughts on 
the naming here.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion either, and your justification is
more thought than I gave to naming these originally so am happy to rename if 
it's more readable or fits better with your series.

Thanks.

 - Alistair
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210427161317.50682-1-peterx at
redhat.com/
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * A pfn swap entry is a special type of swap entry that always has a
pfn
> > stored + * in the swap offset. They are used to represent
unaddressable
> > device memory + * and to restrict access to a page undergoing
migration.
> > + */
> > +static inline bool is_pfn_swap_entry(swp_entry_t entry)
> > +{
> > +     return is_migration_entry(entry) ||
is_device_private_entry(entry);
> > +}
> 
> --
> Peter Xu