The patch titled
Subject: pgtable: improve pte_protnone() comment
has been added to the -mm mm-unstable branch. Its filename is
pgtable-improve-pte_protnone-comment.patch
This patch will shortly appear at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches/pgtable-improve-pte_protnone-comment.patch
This patch will later appear in the mm-unstable branch at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next via the mm-everything
branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
and is updated there every 2-3 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: pgtable: improve pte_protnone() comment
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:32:06 +0200
Especially the "For PROT_NONE VMAs, the PTEs are not marked
_PAGE_PROTNONE" part is wrong: doing an mprotect(PROT_NONE) will end up
marking all PTEs on x86_64 as _PAGE_PROTNONE, making pte_protnone()
indicate "yes".
So let's improve the comment, so it's easier to grasp which semantics
pte_protnone() actually has.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230803143208.383663-6-david@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: liubo <liubo254@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/pgtable.h | 16 ++++++++++------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/pgtable.h~pgtable-improve-pte_protnone-comment
+++ a/include/linux/pgtable.h
@@ -1446,12 +1446,16 @@ static inline int pud_trans_unstable(pud
#ifndef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
/*
- * Technically a PTE can be PROTNONE even when not doing NUMA balancing but
- * the only case the kernel cares is for NUMA balancing and is only ever set
- * when the VMA is accessible. For PROT_NONE VMAs, the PTEs are not marked
- * _PAGE_PROTNONE so by default, implement the helper as "always no". It
- * is the responsibility of the caller to distinguish between PROT_NONE
- * protections and NUMA hinting fault protections.
+ * In an inaccessible (PROT_NONE) VMA, pte_protnone() may indicate "yes". It is
+ * perfectly valid to indicate "no" in that case, which is why our default
+ * implementation defaults to "always no".
+ *
+ * In an accessible VMA, however, pte_protnone() reliably indicates PROT_NONE
+ * page protection due to NUMA hinting. NUMA hinting faults only apply in
+ * accessible VMAs.
+ *
+ * So, to reliably identify PROT_NONE PTEs that require a NUMA hinting fault,
+ * looking at the VMA accessibility is sufficient.
*/
static inline int pte_protnone(pte_t pte)
{
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from david@xxxxxxxxxx are
mm-gup-reintroduce-foll_numa-as-foll_honor_numa_fault.patch
smaps-use-vm_normal_page_pmd-instead-of-follow_trans_huge_pmd.patch
mm-memory_hotplug-document-the-signal_pending-check-in-offline_pages.patch
kvm-explicitly-set-foll_honor_numa_fault-in-hva_to_pfn_slow.patch
mm-gup-dont-implicitly-set-foll_honor_numa_fault.patch
pgtable-improve-pte_protnone-comment.patch
selftest-mm-ksm_functional_tests-test-in-mmap_and_merge_range-if-anything-got-merged.patch
selftest-mm-ksm_functional_tests-add-prot_none-test.patch
