[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkqLnYEXb5D=PZy8wN4YeVTmq8u94YP7Lc=rPPc+p0Nc7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 13:45:20 -0700
From: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: add MTE support
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 1:40 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:37:17 -0700 Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com> wrote:
>
> > MTE can be supported on ram based filesystem. It is supported on tmpfs.
> > There is use case to use MTE on hugetlbfs as well, adding MTE support.
> >
> > --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static int hugetlbfs_file_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > * way when do_mmap unwinds (may be important on powerpc
> > * and ia64).
> > */
> > - vm_flags_set(vma, VM_HUGETLB | VM_DONTEXPAND);
> > + vm_flags_set(vma, VM_HUGETLB | VM_DONTEXPAND | VM_MTE_ALLOWED);
> > vma->vm_ops = &hugetlb_vm_ops;
> >
> > ret = seal_check_write(info->seals, vma);
>
> How thoroughly has this been tested?
>
> Can we expect normal linux-next testing to exercise this, or must
> testers make special arangements to get the coverage?
It requires special arrangements. This needs hardware support and
custom-patched QEMU. We did in-house test on AmpereOne platform with
patched QEMU 8.1.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists