Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid use of BIT() macro for initialising VMA flags

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 12/6/25 2:26 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2025 at 01:14:35AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 05:50:37PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>>> Commit 2b6a3f061f11 ("mm: declare VMA flags by bit") significantly changed
>>> how VMA flags are declared, utilising an enum of VMA bit values and
>>> ifdef-fery VM_xxx flag declarations via macro.
>>>
>>> As part of this change, it uses INIT_VM_FLAG() to define VM_xxx flags from
>>> the newly introduced VMA bit numbers.
>>>
>>> However, use of this macro results in apparently unfortunate macro
>>> expansion and resulted in a performance degradation.This appears to be due
>>> to the (__force int), which is required for the sparse typechecking to
>>> work.
>>
>>> -#define INIT_VM_FLAG(name) BIT((__force int) VMA_ ## name ## _BIT)
>>> +#define INIT_VM_FLAG(name) (1UL << (__force int)(VMA_ ## name ## _BIT))
>>
>> What the hell is __bitwise doing on these enum values?
>> Could we please get rid of that ridiculous cargo-culting?
>>
>> Bitwise operations on BIT NUMBERS make no sense whatsoever; why are those
>> declared __bitwise?

I was confused by this too at first when reviewing, but instead of the angry
display above, simply asked the author and got answers.

Comment says:

/**     
 * typedef vma_flag_t - specifies an individual VMA flag by bit number.
 *      
 * This value is made type safe by sparse to avoid passing invalid flag values
 * around.
 */     
typedef int __bitwise vma_flag_t;

It's done as documented in Documentation/dev-tools/sparse.rst section
"Using sparse for typechecking".

So yeah the keyword is __bitwise and indeed we don't perform bitwise operations
on the VM_ values, in fact we don't perform any operations without __force
casting them back first, to catch when they are used by mistake.
It's not cargo-culting, IIRC it catched a bug in an early version of the
patch itself.

I wouldn't mind if sparse provided a different keyword than __bitwise
for this use case to make it less misleading. Or even better if we could
make the compiler itself treat vma_flag_t as a "special int" that can't
be implicitly cast to a normal int, so we don't have to rely on sparse
checks to catch those.

 
> FWIW, bitwise does make sense for things like (1 << SOME_CONSTANT);
> then you get warned about arithmetics and conversions to integer
> for those, with bitwise operations explicitly allowed.
> 
> VM_... are such; VMA_..._BIT are not.  VM_READ | VM_EXEC is fine;
> VM_READ + 14 is nonsense and should be warned about.  That's where
> __bitwise would make sense.  On bit numbers it's not - what makes
> VMA_BIT_MAYREAD ^ VMA_BIT_SHARED any better than 3 * VMA_BIT_MAYREAD?