On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 12:54:05PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> It's unclear why they would be considered migration entries; they are
> not.
Yeah, I agree that doesn't seem right. I suspect I was initially modelling
device exclusive entries similar to migration entries but obviously went too
far. So thanks for fixing:
Reviewed-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Likely we'll never really trigger that case in practice, because
> migration (including folio split) of a folio that has device-private
> entries is never started, as we would detect "additional references":
> device-private entries adjust the mapcount, but not the refcount.
>
> Fixes: b756a3b5e7ea ("mm: device exclusive memory access")
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/page_vma_mapped.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
> index 81839a9e74f1..32679be22d30 100644
> --- a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
> +++ b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
> @@ -111,8 +111,7 @@ static bool check_pte(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
> return false;
> entry = pte_to_swp_entry(ptent);
>
> - if (!is_migration_entry(entry) &&
> - !is_device_exclusive_entry(entry))
> + if (!is_migration_entry(entry))
> return false;
>
> pfn = swp_offset_pfn(entry);
> --
> 2.48.1
>
