On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 01:22:22PM +0000, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> The implementation of the lazy MMU mode is currently entirely
> arch-specific; core code directly calls arch helpers:
> arch_{enter,leave}_lazy_mmu_mode().
>
> We are about to introduce support for nested lazy MMU sections.
> As things stand we'd have to duplicate that logic in every arch
> implementing lazy_mmu - adding to a fair amount of logic
> already duplicated across lazy_mmu implementations.
>
> This patch therefore introduces a new generic layer that calls the
> existing arch_* helpers. Two pair of calls are introduced:
>
> * lazy_mmu_mode_enable() ... lazy_mmu_mode_disable()
> This is the standard case where the mode is enabled for a given
> block of code by surrounding it with enable() and disable()
> calls.
>
> * lazy_mmu_mode_pause() ... lazy_mmu_mode_resume()
> This is for situations where the mode is temporarily disabled
> by first calling pause() and then resume() (e.g. to prevent any
> batching from occurring in a critical section).
>
> The documentation in <linux/pgtable.h> will be updated in a
> subsequent patch.
>
> No functional change should be introduced at this stage.
> The implementation of enable()/resume() and disable()/pause() is
> currently identical, but nesting support will change that.
>
> Most of the call sites have been updated using the following
> Coccinelle script:
>
> @@
> @@
> {
> ...
> - arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> + lazy_mmu_mode_enable();
> ...
> - arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> + lazy_mmu_mode_disable();
> ...
> }
>
> @@
> @@
> {
> ...
> - arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> + lazy_mmu_mode_pause();
> ...
> - arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> + lazy_mmu_mode_resume();
> ...
> }
>
> A couple of notes regarding x86:
>
> * Xen is currently the only case where explicit handling is required
> for lazy MMU when context-switching. This is purely an
> implementation detail and using the generic lazy_mmu_mode_*
> functions would cause trouble when nesting support is introduced,
> because the generic functions must be called from the current task.
> For that reason we still use arch_leave() and arch_enter() there.
>
> * x86 calls arch_flush_lazy_mmu_mode() unconditionally in a few
> places, but only defines it if PARAVIRT_XXL is selected, and we
> are removing the fallback in <linux/pgtable.h>. Add a new fallback
> definition to <asm/pgtable.h> to keep things building.
Would it make sense to explicitly describe the policy wrt sleeping while
in lazy MMU mode? If I understand the conclusion of conversation right:
* An arch implementation may disable preemption, but then it is arch
responsibility not to call any arch-specific code that might sleep;
* As result, while in lazy MMU mode the generic code should never
call a code that might sleep;
1.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]/
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Brodsky <[email protected]>
...
