diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 68283e54c899..41dc44eb8454 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -7517,7 +7517,7 @@ pte_t *huge_pte_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, struct
vm_area_struct *vma,
}
if (pte) {
- pte_t pteval = ptep_get_lockless(pte);
+ pte_t pteval = ptep_get_lockless_norecency(pte);
BUG_ON(pte_present(pteval) && !pte_huge(pteval));
}
diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
index 2771fc043b3b..1a6c9ed8237a 100644
--- a/mm/khugepaged.c
+++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
@@ -1019,7 +1019,7 @@ static int __collapse_huge_page_swapin(struct mm_struct
*mm,
}
}
- vmf.orig_pte = ptep_get_lockless(pte);
+ vmf.orig_pte = ptep_get_lockless_norecency(pte);
if (!is_swap_pte(vmf.orig_pte))
continue;
Hm, I think you mentioned that we want to be careful with vmf.orig_pte.
Yeah good point. So I guess this should move to patch 3 (which may be dropped -
tbd)?
Yes. Or a separate one where you explain in detail why do_swap_page() can handle
it just fine.
Ahh no wait - I remember now; the reason I believe this is a "trivial" case is
because we only leak vmf.orig_pte to the rest of the world if its a swap entry.
Ugh, yes!
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
