[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74d1f275-23c3-4fd8-b665-503c7fc87df0@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 14:40:55 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Borislav Petkov
<bp@...en8.de>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, "Liam R. Howlett"
<Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Thomas Gleixner
<tglx@...utronix.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] mm: introduce local state for lazy_mmu sections
On 12.09.25 14:37, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 10:55:50AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> Hi David, Kevin,
>
>> Great, looking forward to seeing this all getting cleaned up and done
>> properly for good.
>
> I am currently working on lazy mmu for s390 and this nesting
> initiative kind of interferres. Well, in fact it looks like
> it does not, but I am bit lost in last couple of iterations ;)
>
> The prerequisite for s390 would be something like the change
> below. With that change I can store the context in a per-cpu
> structure and use it later in arch-specific ptep_* primitives.
>
> Moreover, with a further (experimental) rework we could use
> a custom kasan sanitizer to spot false directly compiled
> PTE accesses, as opposed to set_pte()/ptep_get() accessors.
>
> I am not quite sure see whether this could be derailed by
> the new lazy mmu API. At least I do not immediately see any
> obvious problem. But may be you do?
It would just be passing more context down to the architecture, right?
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists