From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE6F0C433EF for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 16:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 469908D0002; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:58:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 418C48D0001; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:58:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 2921A8D0002; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:58:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.28]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B488D0001 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:58:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBAB622117 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 16:58:48 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79247229936.11.FAFC1A9 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by imf28.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4953EC000E for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 16:58:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1647363527; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=LGUrQuXOtgHlUwtoNupql+5VRYbS7vNf+UN5ulYsPQo=; b=Sy7CfHn0xlufviv5ErFCTH9mbdgH4mYkAsE1udi4s0Ftmc34xkVX7vUILT1hos0qBiKUUH GShyX/PkgR+JCVeFSCWPTRBDVd/LfQIgfJ9DHn21QuK8NklO9Jd24viaioR2jugEO9AhhM OCizdOhw8eVOhYoSYJp7k3yrwMCeH+Y= Received: from mail-wr1-f70.google.com (mail-wr1-f70.google.com [209.85.221.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-213-aJrZwy_DPKWTWAcHmV1zAg-1; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 12:58:46 -0400 X-MC-Unique: aJrZwy_DPKWTWAcHmV1zAg-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f70.google.com with SMTP id q14-20020adfea0e000000b002036c16c6daso5496695wrm.8 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 09:58:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:from:to:cc:references:organization:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LGUrQuXOtgHlUwtoNupql+5VRYbS7vNf+UN5ulYsPQo=; b=Sa7fRK4Vay0G9XazZmqPkuSZvi7EOi7WJ0Bf8bTkPWDCdKRBO8lsDHhXamHt3Hpwd6 1XK5i31NGM7i89GjCQNt5am1++2WgfRodIPfb08qP/4ROvJ7MEUs2FFEtlvDmuLIQgau PMjo7FHqhCybkZ6K1UjR0U1Zq0tPun+fqxpojeb5Ba4F7A01B0SAnyMTaEi2j0Uzhrz1 cWGm35Oy0VOmBjEnNAaYMarC8rJz1IKVn8uzMl+g68B+kl1dwpX99FIRco52WvJhNPim 6RPXyFpt8VkR4PLrTVf9MahRqpVh7LNxAs1+J1L8svkz2GIyMC3BnRGEb8xwH0gKnts0 P6fg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531LjagD/q92IouShA3HDatd5f9b6N8Hp/bC0gUEnvkru+SB0wbI VEQ0TF09w92QXhqB7ZGpTjA/Uci++iZvlJnIerbK+RilOOpHf3dfG3h44cw5bUe2E832WQq2vWo t9nZjSXV4bQw= X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c5d6:0:b0:381:4127:84d3 with SMTP id n22-20020a7bc5d6000000b00381412784d3mr4077998wmk.24.1647363525126; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 09:58:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwlZot5PU2X0oLNLaK3DaCcFcYOa0tVNe87pG0OWN67pZZ94UjPsh6UkkIWtNctJtwqc7+3yg== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c5d6:0:b0:381:4127:84d3 with SMTP id n22-20020a7bc5d6000000b00381412784d3mr4077947wmk.24.1647363524808; Tue, 15 Mar 2022 09:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2003:cb:c708:1800:42bd:3cac:d22a:3c62? (p200300cbc708180042bd3cacd22a3c62.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:cb:c708:1800:42bd:3cac:d22a:3c62]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e18-20020adfdbd2000000b001e4bbbe5b92sm17551203wrj.76.2022.03.15.09.58.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Mar 2022 09:58:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8b13b6c0-78d4-48e3-06f0-ec0680d013a9@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 17:58:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] s390/pgtable: support __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE From: David Hildenbrand To: Gerald Schaefer Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Linus Torvalds , David Rientjes , Shakeel Butt , John Hubbard , Jason Gunthorpe , Mike Kravetz , Mike Rapoport , Yang Shi , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Matthew Wilcox , Vlastimil Babka , Jann Horn , Michal Hocko , Nadav Amit , Rik van Riel , Roman Gushchin , Andrea Arcangeli , Peter Xu , Donald Dutile , Christoph Hellwig , Oleg Nesterov , Jan Kara , Liang Zhang , Pedro Gomes , Oded Gabbay , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Alexander Gordeev , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org References: <20220315141837.137118-1-david@redhat.com> <20220315141837.137118-6-david@redhat.com> <20220315172102.771bd2cf@thinkpad> Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4953EC000E X-Stat-Signature: igrg989fsm9gpfyzspki6561zq6a1ph8 Authentication-Results: imf28.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Sy7CfHn0; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=none (imf28.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com has no SPF policy when checking 170.10.129.124) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-HE-Tag: 1647363528-456500 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: >> This would mean that it is not OK to have bit 52 not zero for swap PTEs. >> But if I read the POP correctly, all bits except for the DAT-protection >> would be ignored for invalid PTEs, so maybe this comment needs some update >> (for both bits 52 and also 55). >> >> Heiko might also have some more insight. > > Indeed, I wonder why we should get a specification exception when the > PTE is invalid. I'll dig a bit into the PoP. SA22-7832-12 6-46 ("Translation-Specification Exception") is clearer "The page-table entry used for the translation is valid, and bit position 52 does not contain zero." "The page-table entry used for the translation is valid, EDAT-1 does not apply, the instruction-exe- cution-protection facility is not installed, and bit position 55 does not contain zero. It is model dependent whether this condition is recognized." -- Thanks, David / dhildenb