On 07/01/2016 07:25 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I think what you suggest will work if we don't consider A/D in
>>> >> pte_none(). I think there are a bunch of code path where assume that
>>> >> !pte_present() && !pte_none() means swap.
>> >
>> > Yeah, we would need to change pte_none() to mask off D/A, but I think
>> > that might be the only real change needed (other than making sure that
>> > we don't use the bits in the swap entries, I didn't look at that part
>> > at all)
> It looks like __pte_to_swp_entry also needs to be changed to mask out
> those bits when the swap code reads pte entries. For all of the same
> reasons as pte_none.
I guess that would be nice, but isn't it redundant?
static inline swp_entry_t pte_to_swp_entry(pte_t pte)
{
...
arch_entry = __pte_to_swp_entry(pte);
return swp_entry(__swp_type(arch_entry), __swp_offset(arch_entry));
}
As long as __swp_type() and __swp_offset() don't let A/D through, then
we should be OK. This site is the only call to __pte_to_swp_entry()
that I can find in the entire codebase.
Or am I missing something?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>