linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] mm: remove boolean output parameters from folio_pte_batch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ea2d92fe-3083-4aaf-b8ae-1dc950a01d0e@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 17:11:32 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
 Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
 Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>,
 Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com>, Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>,
 Byungchul Park <byungchul@...com>, Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>,
 Ying Huang <ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>,
 Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] mm: remove boolean output parameters from
 folio_pte_batch_ext()

On 27.06.25 16:34, Lance Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 7:55 PM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Instead, let's just allow for specifying through flags whether we want
>> to have bits merged into the original PTE.
>>
>> For the madvise() case, simplify by having only a single parameter for
>> merging young+dirty. For madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() merging the
>> dirty bit is not required, but also not harmful. This code is not that
>> performance critical after all to really force all micro-optimizations.
> 
> IIRC, this work you've wanted to do for a long time - maybe even a year ago?

Heh, maybe, I don't remember.

For this user here, I realized that we might already check the existence 
of any_dirty at runtime -- because the compiler will not necessarily 
create two optimized functions.

So we already have runtime checks ... instead of checking whether 
any_dirty == NULL, we now simply do the merging (checking for 
pte_young() instead) now.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb