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

Kevin Brodsky
2025-09-10T16:12:04Z

On 09/09/2025 16:38, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
>>>>> Would that integrate well with LAZY_MMU_DEFAULT etc?
>>>> Hmm... I though the idea is to use LAZY_MMU_* by architectures that
>>>> want to use it - at least that is how I read the description above.
>>>>
>>>> It is only kasan_populate|depopulate_vmalloc_pte() in generic code
>>>> that do not follow this pattern, and it looks as a problem to me.
>> This discussion also made me realise that this is problematic, as the
>> LAZY_MMU_{DEFAULT,NESTED} macros were meant only for architectures'
>> convenience, not for generic code (where lazy_mmu_state_t should ideally
>> be an opaque type as mentioned above). It almost feels like the kasan
>> case deserves a different API, because this is not how enter() and
>> leave() are meant to be used. This would mean quite a bit of churn
>> though, so maybe just introduce another arch-defined value to pass to
>> leave() for such a situation - for instance,
>> arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode(LAZY_MMU_FLUSH)?
> What about to adjust the semantics of apply_to_page_range() instead?
>
> It currently assumes any caller is fine with apply_to_pte_range() to
> enter the lazy mode. By contrast, kasan_(de)populate_vmalloc_pte() are
> not fine at all and must leave the lazy mode. That literally suggests
> the original assumption is incorrect.
>
> We could change int apply_to_pte_range(..., bool create, ...) to e.g.
> apply_to_pte_range(..., unsigned int flags, ...) and introduce a flag
> that simply skips entering the lazy mmu mode.

This is pretty much what Ryan proposed [1r] some time ago, although for
a different purpose (avoiding nesting). There wasn't much appetite for
it then, but I agree that this would be a more logical way to go about it.

- Kevin

[1r]