Re: [patch 2/2] [PATCH] mm: Save soft-dirty bits on file pages

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:51:20 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:28:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> >
>> > Good god.
>> >
>> > I wonder if these can be turned into out-of-line functions in some form
>> > which humans can understand.
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> > #define pte_to_pgoff(pte)
>> >     frob(pte, PTE_FILE_SHIFT1, PTE_FILE_BITS1) +
>> >     frob(PTE_FILE_SHIFT2, PTE_FILE_BITS2) +
>> >     frob(PTE_FILE_SHIFT3, PTE_FILE_BITS3) +
>> >     frob(PTE_FILE_SHIFT4, PTE_FILE_BITS1 + PTE_FILE_BITS2 + PTE_FILE_BITS3)
>>
>> Hi, here is what I ended up with. Please take a look (I decided to post
>> patch in the thread since it's related to the context of the mails).
>
> You could have #undefed _mfrob and __frob after using them, but whatever.
>
> I saved this patch to wave at the x86 guys for 3.12.  I plan to merge
> mm-save-soft-dirty-bits-on-file-pages.patch for 3.11.
>
>> Guys, is there a reason for "if _PAGE_BIT_FILE < _PAGE_BIT_PROTNONE"
>> test present in this pgtable-2level.h file at all? I can't imagine
>> where it can be false on x86.
>
> I doubt if "Guys" read this.  x86 maintainers cc'ed.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable-2level.h: clean up pte_to_pgoff and pgoff_to_pte helpers
>
> Andrew asked if there a way to make pte_to_pgoff and pgoff_to_pte macro
> helpers somehow more readable.
>
> With this patch it should be more understandable what is happening with
> bits when they come to and from pte entry.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
>  arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable-2level.h |   82 ++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>
> diff -puN arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable-2level.h~arch-x86-include-asm-pgtable-2levelh-clean-up-pte_to_pgoff-and-pgoff_to_pte-helpers arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable-2level.h
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable-2level.h~arch-x86-include-asm-pgtable-2levelh-clean-up-pte_to_pgoff-and-pgoff_to_pte-helpers
> +++ a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable-2level.h
> @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ static inline pmd_t native_pmdp_get_and_
>  #define native_pmdp_get_and_clear(xp) native_local_pmdp_get_and_clear(xp)
>  #endif
>
> +#define _mfrob(v,r,m,l)                ((((v) >> (r)) & (m)) << (l))
> +#define __frob(v,r,l)          (((v) >> (r)) << (l))
> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY
>

If I'm understanding this right, the idea is to take the bits in the
range a..b of v and stick them at c..d, where a-b == c-d.  Would it
make sense to change this to look something like

#define __frob(v, inmsb, inlsb, outlsb) ((v >> inlsb) & ((1<<(inmsb -
inlsb + 1)-1) << outlsb)

For extra fun, there could be an __unfrob macro that takes the same
inmsg, inlsb, outlsb parameters but undoes it so that it's (more)
clear that the operations that are supposed to be inverses are indeed
inverses.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/