On 07/08/2016 02:19 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The page table manipulation code seems to have grown a couple of
sites that are looking for empty PTEs. Just in case one of these
entries got a stray bit set, use pte_none() instead of checking
for a zero pte_val().
The use pte_same() makes me a bit nervous. If we were doing a
pte_same() check against two cleared entries and one of them had
a stray bit set, it might fail the pte_same() check. But, I
don't think we ever _do_ pte_same() for cleared entries. It is
almost entirely used for checking for races in fault-in paths.
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
So, this might be just because I know next to nothing about (para)virt,
but...
in arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h, pte_val is implemented via some
pvops, which suggests that obtaining a pte value is different than just
reading it from memory. But I don't see pte_none() defined to be using
this on paravirt, and it shares (before patch 2/4) the "return !pte.pte"
implementation, AFAICS?
So that itself is suspicious to me. And now that this patches does
things like this:
- if (pte_val(*pte)) {
+ if (!pte_none(*pte)) {
So previously on paravirt these tests would read pte via the pvops, and
now they won't. Is that OK?
Thanks,
Vlastimil
--
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>