[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw_tWio_ABFUocNHU+_RKe-27U9_=4ATfp3-vSWVZkdug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:04:54 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Xen-devel@...ts.xen.org,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression: x86/mm: new _PTE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY bit conflicts with
existing use
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I personally don't see bug here because
>
> - this swapped page soft dirty bit is set for non-present entries only,
> never for present ones, just at moment we form swap pte entry
>
> - i don't find any code which would test for this bit directly without
> is_swap_pte call
Ok, having gone through the places that use swp_*soft_dirty(), I have
to agree. Afaik, it's only ever used on a swap-entry that has (by
definition) the P bit clear. So with or without Xen, I don't see how
it can make any difference.
David/Konrad - did you actually see any issues, or was this just from
(mis)reading the code?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists