[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ybry+cBqY71/Y3OT@xz-m1.local>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2021 16:04:09 +0800
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/23] mm: Check against orig_pte for finish_fault()
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 06:45:07PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 December 2021 6:06:54 PM AEDT Peter Xu wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I wondered how it could have worked - I thought e.g. pte_alloc_one() will
> > always return a pgtable page will all zero-filled, whose allocation should
> > require __GFP_ZERO anyway. But then I quickly noticed that pte_alloc_one() is
> > per-arch too.. That explains, because per-arch can re-initialize the default
> > pte values.
>
> Yes, I have wondered the same things before as well. It's all a little bit of
> fun some of this stuff.
>
> > I thought this patch can greatly simplify things but I overlooked the
> > pte_none() check you mentioned. So it seems I have no good choice but add that
> > flag back.
> >
> > There's another alternative is we do pte_clear() on vmf->orig_pte as the new
> > way to initialize it. I believe it should work too for s390 and xtensa.
> >
> > Any preference?
>
> I prefer the later approach (initialising to pte_clear) as it seems cleaner,
> and pte_none(pte_clear()) is true for every architecture afaik.
Will do.
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists