Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: introduce and use VMA flag test helpers

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 10:04:31AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> It may also just be sensible to drop the vma_test() since I've named VMA flags
> vma->flags which is kinda neat and not so painful to do:
> 
> 	if (vma_flags_test(&vma->flags, VMA_READ_BIT)) {
> 	}
> 
> Another note - I do hope to drop the _BIT at some point. But it felt egregious
> to do so _now_ since VM_READ, VMA_READ are so close it'd be _super_ easy to
> mistake the two.

Yes, you should have the bit until the non-bit versions are removed
entirely.

> Buuut I'm guessing actually you're thinking more of getting rid of
> vm_flags_word_[and, any, all]() all of which take VM_xxx parameters.

Yes
 
> > few instructions.
> >
> 
> Well I'm not sure, hopefully. Maybe I need to test this and see exactly what the
> it comes up with.
> 
> I mean you could in theory have:
> 
> vma_flags_any(&vma->flags, OR_VMA_FLAGS(VMA_PFNMAP_BIT, VMA_SEALED_BIT))

'any' here means any of the given bits set, yes? So the operation is

(flags & to_test) != 0

Which is bitmap_and, not or. In this case the compiler goes word by
word:

  flags[0] & to_test[0] != 0
  flags[1] & to_test[1] != 0
 
And constant propagation turns it into
  flags[1] & 0 != 0 ----> 0

So the extra word just disappears.

Similarly if you want to do a set bit using or

  flags[0] = flags[0] | to_set[0]
  flags[1] = flags[1] | to_set[1]

And again constant propagation
  flags[1] = flags[1] | 0 ------>  NOP

> I feel like we're going to need the 'special first word' stuff permanently for
> performance reasons.

I think not, look above..

> > Then everything only works with _BIT and we don't have the special
> > first word situation.
> 
> In any case we still need to maintain the word stuff for legacy purposes at
> least to handle the existing vm_flags_*() interfaces until the work is complete.

I think it will be hard to sustain this idea that some operations do
not work on the bits in the second word, it is just not very natural
going forward..

So I'd try to structure things to remove the non-BIT users before
adding multi-word..

Jason