[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <hrnnpvhpio6eb27w6xnqpdlyrlivu4xfbghagousys44a5dvgp@urmlfv7dyiqv>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 15:47:51 +0000
From: Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>, "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: propagate VM_SOFTDIRTY on merge
On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 05:53:18PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> Currently we set VM_SOFTDIRTY when a new mapping is set up (whether by
> establishing a new VMA, or via merge) as implemented in __mmap_complete()
> and do_brk_flags().
>
> However, when performing a merge of existing mappings such as when
> performing mprotect(), we may lose the VM_SOFTDIRTY flag.
Does it make sense to backport this to stable? A more minimal version, that is.
>
> This is because currently we simply ignore VM_SOFTDIRTY for the purposes of
> merge, so one VMA may possess the flag and another not, and whichever
> happens to be the target VMA will be the one upon which the merge is
> performed which may or may not have VM_SOFTDIRTY set.
>
> Now we have the concept of 'sticky' VMA flags, let's make VM_SOFTDIRTY one
> which solves this issue.
>
> Additionally update VMA userland tests to propagate changes.
>
> Suggested-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Reviewed-by: Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>
--
Pedro
Powered by blists - more mailing lists