Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] mm: introduce local state for lazy_mmu sections

[Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>]

On 09/09/2025 12:57, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 09.09.25 11:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 08.09.25 09:39, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Note: it is difficult to provide a default definition of
>>> lazy_mmu_state_t for architectures implementing lazy_mmu, because
>>> that definition would need to be available in
>>> arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h and adding a new generic
>>>   #include there is very tricky due to the existing header soup.
>>
>> Yeah, I was wondering about exactly that.
>>
>> In particular because LAZY_MMU_DEFAULT etc resides somewehere
>> compeltely different.
>>
>> Which raises the question: is using a new type really of any benefit
>> here?
>>
>> Can't we just use an "enum lazy_mmu_state" and call it a day?
>>
>
> The comment about the "header soup" made me look into this problem:
>
> It seems some of the "#include <asm/paravirt.h>" instances in the code
> base can just be dropped.
>
> For the remaining cases I'd like to suggest a reorg of the related
> headers:
> Instead of having the non-paravirt definition in one header and the
> paravirt
> ones in paravirt.h, maybe it would be better to have only the paravirt
> generic definitions in paravirt.h and the specific functions in the
> header
> defining the non-paravirt variant. This would probably resolve the
> problem
> with the "soup", as paravirt.h wouldn't rely on so many other headers.
>
> I'm just preparing a patch doing the removal of the not needed
> includes, but
> I'd be willing to address the disentangling as noted above.
>
> Thoughts?

I don't know enough about these headers to express an informed opinion,
but it does sound like a useful cleanup. Do you think it would allow
<asm/paravirt_types.h> to include <linux/mm_types.h>? This is what we
would need to have a generic definition of lazy_mmu_state_t (which could
be overridden by defining some __HAVE_ARCH macro in <asm/mmu.h>).

- Kevin