mm: Question about the use of 'accessed' flags and pte_young() helper

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



In a 10 years old commit (https://github.com/linuxppc/linux/commit/d069cb4373fe0d451357c4d3769623a7564dfa9f), powerpc 8xx has made the handling of PTE accessed bit conditional to CONFIG_SWAP.
Since then, this has been extended to some other powerpc variants.

That commit means that when CONFIG_SWAP is not selected, the accessed bit is not set by SW TLB miss handlers, leading to pte_young() returning garbage, or should I say possibly returning false allthough a page has been accessed since its access flag was reset.

Looking at various mm/ places, pte_young() is used independent of CONFIG_SWAP

Is it still valid the not manage accessed flags when CONFIG_SWAP is not selected ?
If yes, should pte_young() always return true in that case ?

While we are at it, I'm wondering whether powerpc should redefine arch_faults_on_old_pte()
On some variants of powerpc, accessed flag is managed by HW. On others, it is managed by SW TLB miss handlers via page fault handling.

Thanks
Christophe




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux