Thread (49 messages) 49 messages, 6 authors, 2024-01-24

Re: [PATCH v1 01/11] arm/pgtable: define PFN_PTE_SHIFT on arm and arm64

From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Date: 2024-01-23 11:38:37
Also in: linux-mm, linux-riscv, linux-s390, linuxppc-dev, lkml, sparclinux

On 23/01/2024 11:31, David Hildenbrand wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
quoted
quoted
quoted
If high bits are used for
something else, then we might produce a garbage PTE on overflow, but that
shouldn't really matter I concluded for folio_pte_batch() purposes, we'd not
detect "belongs to this folio batch" either way.
Exactly.
quoted
Maybe it's likely cleaner to also have a custom pte_next_pfn() on ppc, I just
hope that we don't lose any other arbitrary PTE bits by doing the pte_pgprot().
I don't see the need for ppc to implement pte_next_pfn().
Agreed.
So likely we should then do on top for powerpc (whitespace damage):
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c
index a04ae4449a025..549a440ed7f65 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c
@@ -220,10 +220,7 @@ void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
pte_t *ptep,
                        break;
                ptep++;
                addr += PAGE_SIZE;
-               /*
-                * increment the pfn.
-                */
-               pte = pfn_pte(pte_pfn(pte) + 1, pte_pgprot((pte)));
+               pte = pte_next_pfn(pte);
        }
 }
Looks like commit 47b8def9358c ("powerpc/mm: Avoid calling
arch_enter/leave_lazy_mmu() in set_ptes") changed from doing the simple
increment to this more complex approach, but the log doesn't say why.
 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help