On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> pmd = pmd_modify(pmd, vma->vm_page_prot);
> + pmd = pmd_mkyoung(pmd);
Hmm. I *thought* this should be unnecessary. vm_page_prot alreadty has
the accessed bit set, and we kind of depend on the initial page table
setup and mk_pte() and friends (ie all new pages are installed
"young").
But it looks like I am wrong - the way we use _[H]PAGE_CHG_MASK means
that we always take the accessed and dirty bits from the old entry,
ignoring the bit in vm_page_prot.
I wonder if we should just make pte/pmd_modify() work the way I
*thought* they worked (remove the masking of vm_page_prot bits).
So the patch isn't wrong. It's just that we *migth* instead just do
something like this:
arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
index a0c35bf6cb92..79b898bb9e18 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte,
pgprot_t newprot)
* the newprot (if present):
*/
val &= _PAGE_CHG_MASK;
- val |= massage_pgprot(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK;
+ val |= massage_pgprot(newprot);
return __pte(val);
}
@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@ static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd,
pgprot_t newprot)
pmdval_t val = pmd_val(pmd);
val &= _HPAGE_CHG_MASK;
- val |= massage_pgprot(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK;
+ val |= massage_pgprot(newprot);
return __pmd(val);
}
instead, and remove the mkyoung. Completely untested, but that "just
or in the new protection bits" is what pnf_pte() does just a few lines
above this.
Linus
--
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>