linux-kernel - Re: [v2 PATCH] arm64: mm: show direct mapping use in /proc/meminfo

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: <aR4yTL-F8yvIyTBH@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 21:10:36 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>
Cc: ryan.roberts@....com, cl@...two.org, will@...nel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] arm64: mm: show direct mapping use in /proc/meminfo

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 11:37:13AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> On 11/19/25 11:12 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> > 
> > On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 14:52:10 -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > Since commit a166563e7ec3 ("arm64: mm: support large block mapping when
> > > rodata=full"), the direct mapping may be split on some machines instead
> > > keeping static since boot. It makes more sense to show the direct mapping
> > > use in /proc/meminfo than before.
> > > This patch will make /proc/meminfo show the direct mapping use like the
> > > below (4K base page size):
> > > DirectMap4K:	   94792 kB
> > > DirectMap64K:	  134208 kB
> > > DirectMap2M:	 1173504 kB
> > > DirectMap32M:	 5636096 kB
> > > DirectMap1G:	529530880 kB
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > It matches Documentation/filesystems/proc.rst, so I'm fine to align
> > arm64 with it.
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> > 
> > Applied to arm64 (for-next/misc), thanks!
> > 
> > [1/1] arm64: mm: show direct mapping use in /proc/meminfo
> >        https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/1102778cb023
> 
> Thanks for taking the patch. However, Ryan noticed some over-accounting
> problems and had some suggestions to code cleanup as well. I'm going to
> submit v3 to the mailing list soon.

Ah, yes, I forgot about that. If the change is small, can you submit a
fix instead? I tend not to rebase the for-next/* branches. Otherwise I
can revert and apply a new one.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin