Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] mm: split folio_pte_batch() into folio_pte_batch() and folio_pte_batch_ext()

[David Hildenbrand]

On 30.06.25 12:41, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 11:19:13AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 27.06.25 20:48, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 01:55:09PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > Many users (including upcoming ones) don't really need the flags etc,
> > > > and can live with a function call.
> > > >
> > > > So let's provide a basic, non-inlined folio_pte_batch().
> > >
> > > Hm, but why non-inlined, when it invokes an inlined function? Seems odd no?
> >
> > We want to always generate a function that uses as little runtime checks as
> > possible. Essentially, optimize out the "flags" as much as possible.
> >
> > In case of folio_pte_batch(), where we won't use any flags, any checks will
> > be optimized out by the compiler.
> >
> > So we get a single, specialized, non-inlined function.
>
> I mean I suppose code bloat is a thing too. Would the compiler not also optimise
> out checks if it were inlined though?

The compiler will optimize all (most) inlined variants, yes.

But we will end up creating the same optimized variant for each 
folio_pte_batch() user before this change.

And as Andrew put it

"And why the heck is folio_pte_batch() inlined?  It's larger then my 
first hard disk" [1]

I should probably add a suggested-by + link to that discussion.

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20250503182858.5a02729fcffd6d4723afcfc2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

[...]

> > Obviously, I had that as part of the development, and decided against it at
> > some point. :)
> >
> > Yeah, _ext() is not common in MM yet, in contrast to other subsystems. The
> > only user is indeed page_ext. On arm we seem to have set_pte_ext(). But it's
> > really "page_ext", that's the problematic part, not "_ext" :P
> >
> > No strong opinion, but I tend to dislike here "__", because often it means
> > "internal helper you're not supposed to used", which isn't really the case
> > here.
>
> Yeah, and of course we break this convention all over the place :)
>
> Maybe folio_pte_batch_flags()?

Works for me as well.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb