Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] mm: remove is_swap_[pte, pmd]() + non-swap entries, introduce leaf entries

Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-11-10T10:19:20Z

On Sun, Nov 09, 2025 at 11:32:09PM -0800, Chris Li wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> Sorry I was late to the party. Can you clarify that you intend to
> remove swp_entry_t completely to softleaf_t?
> I think for the traditional usage of the swp_entry_t, which is made up
> of swap device type and swap device offset. Can we please keep the
> swp_entry_t for the traditional swap system usage? The mix type can
> stay in softleaf_t in the pte level.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter - if we do entirely eliminate
swp_entry_t, the type that we are left with for genuine swap entries will
be _identical_ to swp_entry_t. As in bit-by-bit identical.

But I did think perhaps we could maintain this type explicitly for the
_actual_ swap code.

>
> I kind of wish the swap system could still use swp_entry_t. At least I
> don't see any complete reason to massively rename all the swap system
> code if we already know the entry is the limited meaning of swap entry
> (device + offset).

Well the reason would be because we are trying to keep things consistent
and viewing a swap entry as merely being one of the modes of a softleaf.

However I am empathetic to not wanting to create _entirely_ unnecessary
churn here.

I will actively keep you in the loop on follow up series and obviously will
absolutely take your opinion seriously on this.

I think this series overall hugely improves clarity and additionally avoids
a bunch of unnecessary, duplicative logic that previously was required, so
is well worth the slightly-annoying-churn cost here.

But when it comes to the swap code itself I will try to avoid any
unnecessary noise.

One thing we were considering (discussions on previous iteration of series)
was to have a union of different softleaf types - one of which could simply
be swp_entry_t, meaning we get the best of both worlds, or at least
absolutely minimal changes.

>
> Timing is not great either. We have the swap table phase II on review
> now. There is also phase III and phase IV on the backlog pipeline. All
> this renaming can create unnecessary conflicts. I am pleading please
> reduce the renaming in the swap system code for now until we can
> figure out what is the impact to the rest of the swap table series,
> which is the heavy lifting for swap right now. I want to draw a line
> in the sand that, on the PTE entry side, having multiple meanings, we
> can call it softleaft_t whatever. If we know it is the traditional
> swap entry meaning. Keep it swp_entry_t for now until we figure out
> the real impact.

I really do empathise, having dealt with multiple conflicts and races in
series, however I don't think it's really sensible to delay one series
based on unmerged follow ups.

So this series will proceed as it is.

However I'm more than happy to help resolve conflicts - if you want to send
me any of these series off list etc. I can rebase to mm-new myself if
that'd be helpful?

>
> Does this renaming have any behavior change in the produced machine code?

It shouldn't result in any meaningful change no.

>
> Chris
>

Cheers, Lorenzo