Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Create 'old' ptes for faultaround mappings on arm64 with hardware access flag

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org>,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Create 'old' ptes for faultaround mappings on arm64 with hardware access flag
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:34:08 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg3UkUdiTbqWFx3zBLXv9VJHuNZAa5QyDvXiSmD4gX94A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210108171517.5290-1-will@kernel.org>

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 9:15 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> The big difference in this version is that I have reworked it based on
> Kirill's patch which he posted as a follow-up to the original. However,
> I can't tell where we've landed on that -- Linus seemed to like it, but
> Hugh was less enthusiastic.

Yeah, I like it, but I have to admit that it had a disturbingly high
number of small details wrong for several versions. I hope you picked
up the final version of the code.

At the same time, I do think that the "disturbingly high number of
issues" was primarily exactly _because_ the old code was so
incomprehensible, and I think the end result is much cleaner, so I
still like it.

>I think that my subsequent patches are an
> awful lot cleaner after the rework

Yeah, I think that's a side effect of "now the code really makes a lot
more sense". Your subsequent patches 2-3 certainly are much simpler
now, although I'd be inclined to add an argument to "do_set_pte()"
that has the "write" and "pretault" bits in it, instead of having to
modify the 'vmf' structure.

I still dislike how we basically randomly modify the information in
that 'vmf' thing.

That said, now it's just a small detail - not really objectionable,
just a "this could be cleaner, I think".

I think it was Kirill who pointed out that we sadly cannot make 'vmf'
read-only anyway, because it does also contain those pre-allocation
details etc (vmf->pte etc) that are very much about what the current
"state" of the fault is. So while I would hope it could be more
read-only than it is, my wish that it could _actually_ be 'const' is
clearly just an irrelevant dream.

                   Linus

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel