Re: [RFC 0/4] arm64/mm: Clean up pte_dirty() state management

[Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>]

On 7/10/23 16:55, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 11:03:27AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> These pte_dirty() changes make things explicitly clear, while improving the
>> code readability. This optimizes HW dirty state transfer into SW dirty bit.
>> This also adds a new arm64 documentation explaining overall pte dirty state
>> management in detail. This series applies on the latest mainline kernel.
> TBH, I think this is all swings and roundabouts, and I'm not sure this is
> worthwhile. I appreciate that as-is some people find this confusing, but I

Current situation for pte_dirty() management is confusing when there are two
distinct mechanisms to track PTE dirty states, but both are forced to work
together because

- HW DBM cannot track non-writable dirty state (PTE_DBM == PTE_WRITE)
- Runtime check for HW DBM is avoided

> don't think the end result of this series is actually better, and it adds more
> code/documentation to maintain.

Agreed, it does add more code and documentation but still trying to understand
why it is not worthwhile. Regardless, following patch does optimize a situation
where we dont need to call pte_mkdirty() knowing it will be cleared afterwards.

[RFC 2/4] arm64/mm: Call pte_sw_mkdirty() while preserving the HW dirty state

> 
> In particular, I don't think that we should add Documentation/ files for this,
> as it's very likely that won't be updated together with the code, and I think
> it's more of a maintenance burden than a help. If we want some introductory

There are many documentation files such as Documentation/arm64/memory.rst which
needs to be updated when kernel virtual address layout changes again. I am just
wondering - should not there be any documentation for internal implementation
details, just because they need updating with code changes.

> text to explain how the HW/SW dirty bits work, I think that should be a comment
> block in <asm/pgtable.h>, clearly associated with the code.

Sure, will add that.

> 
> Overall, I'd prefer to leave the code as-is.
Even if we discount individual dirty clearing functions, why should not HW dirty
bit transfer to SW dirty be optimized and wrapped around in a helper.