Re: [PATCH v6 23/26] mm: Remove pXX_devmap callers

[Dan Williams]

Alistair Popple wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 10:50:49AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > The devmap PTE special bit was used to detect mappings of FS DAX
> > > pages. This tracking was required to ensure the generic mm did not
> > > manipulate the page reference counts as FS DAX implemented it's own
> > > reference counting scheme.
> > > 
> > > Now that FS DAX pages have their references counted the same way as
> > > normal pages this tracking is no longer needed and can be
> > > removed.
> > > 
> > > Almost all existing uses of pmd_devmap() are paired with a check of
> > > pmd_trans_huge(). As pmd_trans_huge() now returns true for FS DAX pages
> > > dropping the check in these cases doesn't change anything.
> > > 
> > > However care needs to be taken because pmd_trans_huge() also checks that
> > > a page is not an FS DAX page. This is dealt with either by checking
> > > !vma_is_dax() or relying on the fact that the page pointer was obtained
> > > from a page list. This is possible because zone device pages cannot
> > > appear in any page list due to sharing page->lru with page->pgmap.
> > 
> > While the patch looks straightforward I think part of taking "care" in
> > this case is to split it such that any of those careful conversions have
> > their own bisect point in the history.
> > 
> > Perhaps this can move to follow-on series to not blow up the patch count
> > of the base series? ...but first want to get your reaction to splitting
> > for bisect purposes.
> 
> TBH I don't feel too strongly about it - I suppose it would make it easier to
> bisect to the specific case we weren't careful enough about. However I think if
> a bug is bisected to this particular patch it would be relatively easy based on
> the context of the bug to narrow it down to a particular file or two.
> 
> I do however feel strongly about whether or not that should be done in a
> follow-on series :-)
> 
> Rebasing such a large series has already become painful and error prone enough
> so if we want to split this change up it will definitely need to be a separate
> series done once the rest of this has been merged. So I could be pursaded to
> roll this and the pfn_t removal (as that depends on devmap going away) together.
> 
> Let me know what you think.

I tend to think that there's never any regrets for splitting a patch
along lines of risk. I am fine with keeping that in this series if that
makes things easier.