[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210520130224.GE12251@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 14:02:25 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
Juan Quintela <quintela@...hat.com>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>,
Haibo Xu <Haibo.Xu@....com>, Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 3/8] arm64: mte: Sync tags for pages where PTE is
untagged
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:25:50PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:55:21PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> > The problem I hit is one of include dependencies:
> >
> > is_swap_pte() is defined (as a static inline) in
> > include/linux/swapops.h. However the definition depends on
> > pte_none()/pte_present() which are defined in pgtable.h - so there's a
> > circular dependency.
> >
> > Open coding is_swap_pte() in set_pte_at() works, but it's a bit ugly.
> > Any ideas on how to improve on the below?
> >
> > if (system_supports_mte() && pte_present(pte) &&
> > pte_access_permitted(pte, false) && !pte_special(pte)) {
> > pte_t old_pte = READ_ONCE(*ptep);
> > /*
> > * We only need to synchronise if the new PTE has tags enabled
> > * or if swapping in (in which case another mapping may have
> > * set tags in the past even if this PTE isn't tagged).
> > * (!pte_none() && !pte_present()) is an open coded version of
> > * is_swap_pte()
> > */
> > if (pte_tagged(pte) || (!pte_none(pte) && !pte_present(pte)))
> > mte_sync_tags(old_pte, pte);
> > }
>
> That's why I avoided testing my suggestion ;). I think we should just
> add !pte_none() in there with a comment that it may be a swap pte and
> use the is_swap_pte() again on the mte_sync_tags() path. We already have
> the pte_present() check.
Correction - pte_present() checks the new pte only, we need another for
the old pte. So it looks like we'll open-code is_swap_pte().
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists