[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6785b90f300d8_20fa29465@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:08:31 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>
CC: <alison.schofield@...el.com>, Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
<lina@...hilina.net>, <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
<gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>, <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
<dave.jiang@...el.com>, <logang@...tatee.com>, <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
<jack@...e.cz>, <jgg@...pe.ca>, <catalin.marinas@....com>, <will@...nel.org>,
<mpe@...erman.id.au>, <npiggin@...il.com>, <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
<ira.weiny@...el.com>, <willy@...radead.org>, <djwong@...nel.org>,
<tytso@....edu>, <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, <david@...hat.com>,
<peterx@...hat.com>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
<jhubbard@...dia.com>, <hch@....de>, <david@...morbit.com>,
<chenhuacai@...nel.org>, <kernel@...0n.name>, <loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 12/26] mm/memory: Enhance
insert_page_into_pte_locked() to create writable mappings
Alistair Popple wrote:
> In preparation for using insert_page() for DAX, enhance
> insert_page_into_pte_locked() to handle establishing writable
> mappings. Recall that DAX returns VM_FAULT_NOPAGE after installing a
> PTE which bypasses the typical set_pte_range() in finish_fault.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
> Suggested-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
>
> ---
>
> Changes for v5:
> - Minor comment/formatting fixes suggested by David Hildenbrand
>
> Changes since v2:
>
> - New patch split out from "mm/memory: Add dax_insert_pfn"
> ---
> mm/memory.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 06bb29e..8531acb 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -2126,19 +2126,40 @@ static int validate_page_before_insert(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> }
>
> static int insert_page_into_pte_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pte_t *pte,
> - unsigned long addr, struct page *page, pgprot_t prot)
> + unsigned long addr, struct page *page,
> + pgprot_t prot, bool mkwrite)
> {
> struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
> + pte_t entry = ptep_get(pte);
> pte_t pteval;
>
> - if (!pte_none(ptep_get(pte)))
> - return -EBUSY;
> + if (!pte_none(entry)) {
> + if (!mkwrite)
> + return -EBUSY;
> +
> + /* see insert_pfn(). */
> + if (pte_pfn(entry) != page_to_pfn(page)) {
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(entry)));
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
> + entry = maybe_mkwrite(entry, vma);
> + entry = pte_mkyoung(entry);
> + if (ptep_set_access_flags(vma, addr, pte, entry, 1))
> + update_mmu_cache(vma, addr, pte);
> + return 0;
> + }
This hunk feels like it is begging to be unified with insert_pfn() after
pfn_t dies. Perhaps a TODO to remember to come back and unify them, or
you can go append that work to your pfn_t removal series?
Other than that you can add:
Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists