[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8b13b6c0-78d4-48e3-06f0-ec0680d013a9@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 17:58:42 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Donald Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Liang Zhang <zhangliang5@...wei.com>,
Pedro Gomes <pedrodemargomes@...il.com>,
Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] s390/pgtable: support
__HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE
>> This would mean that it is not OK to have bit 52 not zero for swap PTEs.
>> But if I read the POP correctly, all bits except for the DAT-protection
>> would be ignored for invalid PTEs, so maybe this comment needs some update
>> (for both bits 52 and also 55).
>>
>> Heiko might also have some more insight.
>
> Indeed, I wonder why we should get a specification exception when the
> PTE is invalid. I'll dig a bit into the PoP.
SA22-7832-12 6-46 ("Translation-Specification Exception") is clearer
"The page-table entry used for the translation is
valid, and bit position 52 does not contain zero."
"The page-table entry used for the translation is
valid, EDAT-1 does not apply, the instruction-exe-
cution-protection facility is not installed, and bit
position 55 does not contain zero. It is model
dependent whether this condition is recognized."
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists