Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] remove is_swap_[pte, pmd]() + non-swap confusion

Jason Gunthorpe
2025-10-28T12:48:29Z

On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 05:33:57PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> (Note I never intended this to be an RFC, it was only because of
> series-likely-to-be-dropped causing nasty conflicts this isn't an 'out
> there' series rather a practical submission).
>
> To preface, as I said elsewhere, I intend to do more on this, renaming
> swp_entry_t to probably leaf_entry_t (thanks Gregory!)
>
> The issue is no matter how I do this people will theorise different
> approaches, I'm trying to practically find a way forward that works
> iteratively.

It is why I suggested that swp_entry_t is the name we have (for this
series at least) and lean into it as the proper name for the abstract
idea of a multi-type'd value. Having a following series to rename
"swp_entry_t" to some "leaf entry" will resolve the poor naming.

But for now, "swp_entry_t" does not mean *swap* entry, it means "leaf
entry with a really bad type name".

And swpent_* is the namespace prefix for things dealing with
swp_entry_t.

If done consistently then the switch to leaf entry naming is just a
simple mass rename of swpent/leafent.

> > That suggests functions like this:
> >
> > swpent_is_swap()
> > swpent_is_migration()
> > ..
>
> The _whole point_ of this series is to separate out the idea that you're
> dealing with swap entries so I don't like swpent as a name obviously.

As you say we can't fix everything at once, but if you do the above
and then rename the end state would be

leafent_is_swap()
leafent_is_migration()
..

And that seems like a good end state.

So pick the small steps, either lean into swpent in this series as the
place holder for leafent in the next..

Or this seems like a good idea too:

> We could also just pre-empt and prefix functions with leafent_is_swap() if
> you prefer.
>
> We could even do:
>
> /* TODO: Rename swap_entry_t to leaf_entry_t */
> typedef swap_entry_t leaf_entry_t;
>
> And use the new type right away.

Then the followup series is cleaning away swap_entry_t as a name.

> > /* True if the pte is a swpent_is_swap() */
> > static inline bool swpent_get_swap_pte(pte_t pte, swp_entry_t *entryp)
> > {
> > if (pte_present(pte))
> > return false;
> > *swpent = pte_to_swp_entry(pte);
> > return swpent_is_swap(*swpent);
> > }
>
> I already implement in the series a pte_to_swp_entry_or_zero() function

I saw, but I don't think it is a great name.. It doesn't really give
"zero" it gives a swp_entry_t that doesn't pass any of the
swpent_is_XX() functions. ie a none type.

> that goes one further - checks pte_present() for you, if pte_none() you
> just get an empty swap entry, so this can be:

And I was hoping to see a path to get rid of the pte_none() stuff, or
at least on most arches. It is pretty pointless to check for pte_none
if the arch has a none-pte that already is 0..

So pte_none can be more like:
swpent_is_none(pte_to_swp_entry(pte))

Where pte_to_swp_entry is just some bit maths with no conditionals.

> > I also think it will be more readable to keep all these things under a
> > swpent namespace instead of using unstructured english names.
>
> Nope. Again, the whole point of the series is to avoid referencing
> swap. swpent_xxx() is just eliminating the purpose of the series right?
>
> Yes it sucks that the type name is what it is, but this is an iterative
> process.

Sure, but don't add a bunch of new names with *no namespace*. As above
either accept swpent is a placeholder for leafent in the next series,
or do this:

> But as above, we could pre-empt future changes and prefix with a
> leafent_*() prefix if that works for you?

Which seems like a good idea to me.

> > I'd expect a safe function should be more like
> >
> > *swpent = pte_to_swp_entry_safe(pte);
> > return swpent_is_swap(*swpent);
> >
> > Where "safe" means that if the PTE is None or Present then
> > swpent_is_XX() == false. Ie it returns a 0 swpent and 0 swpent is
> > always nothing.
>
> Not sure it's really 'safe', the name is unfortunate, but you could read
> this as 'always get a valid swap entry to operate on'...

My suggestion was the leaf entry has a type {none, swap, migration, etc}

And this _safe version returns the none type'd leaf entry for a
present pte.

We move toward eliminating the idea of pte_none by saying a
non-present pte is always a leaf_entry and what we call a "none pte"
is a "none leaf entry"

> leaf_entry_t leafent_from_pte()...?

Probably this one?
> > static inline bool get_pte_swap_entry(pte_t pte, swp_entry_t *entryp)
> > {
> > return swpent_is_swap(*swpent = pte_to_swp_entry_safe(pte));
> > }
>
> I absolutely hate that embedded assignment, but this is equivalent to what
> I suggested above, so agreed this is a good suggestion broadly.
>
> >
> > Maybe it doesn't even need an inline at that point?
>
> Don't understand what you mean by that. It's in a header file?

I mean just write it like this in the callers:

swp_entry_t leafent = pte_to_swp_entry_safe(pte);

if (swpent_is_swap(leafent)) {
}

It is basically the same # lines as the helper version.

> > > * is_huge_pmd() - Determines if a PMD contains either a present transparent
> > > huge page entry or a huge non-present entry. This again simplifies a lot
> > > of logic that simply open-coded this.
> >
> > is_huge_or_swpent_pmd() would be nicer, IMHO. I think it is surprising
> > when any of these APIs accept swap entries without being explicit
>
> Again, I'm not going to reference swap in a series intended to eliminate
> this, it defeats the purpose.
>
> And the non-present (or whatever you want to call it) entry _is_ huge. So
> it's just adding more confusion that way IMO.

Then this:

pmd_is_present_or_leafent(pmd)

Jason