David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > As we are seeing more such problems with lockless PT walks, maybe we > really want some other special value (nonswap entry?) to indicate that > a PTE this is currently ondergoing protection changes. So we'd avoid > the pte_none() temporarily, if possible. This sounds like a good idea. This can solve other issue caused by temporarily pte_none() issue too, like the following, https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240229060907.836589-1-zhangpeng362@xxxxxxxxxx/ -- Best Regards, Huang, Ying
