Re: [PATCH 02/16] mm: introduce leaf entry type and use to simplify leaf entry logic

[David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)]

On 05.11.25 21:05, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 03:01:00PM -0500, Gregory Price wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 07:52:36PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 02:25:34PM -0500, Gregory Price wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 07:06:11PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > I thought about doing this but it doesn't really work as the type is
> > > _abstracted_ from the architecture-specific value, _and_ we use what is
> > > currently the swp_type field to identify what this is.
> > >
> > > So we would lose the architecture-specific information that any 'hardware leaf'
> > > entry would require and not be able to reliably identify it without losing bits.
> > >
> > > Trying to preserve the value _and_ correctly identify it as a present entry
> > > would be difficult.
> > >
> > > And I _really_ didn't want to go on a deep dive through all the architectures to
> > > see if we could encode it differently to allow for this.
> > >
> > > Rather I think it's better to differentiate between s/w + h/w leaf entries.
> >
> > Reasonable - names are hard, but just about anything will be better than swp_entry.
> >
> > SWE / sw_entry seems perfectly reasonable.
>
> I'm not a lover of 'sw' in there it's just... eye-stabby. Is that a word?
>
> I am quite fond of my suggested soft_leaf_t, softleaf_xxx()

We do have soft_dirty.

It will get interesting with pte_swp_soft_dirty() :)

ptw_softlead_soft_dirty() Well, at least I would understand it.