On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:59:23 +1100 Michael Ellerman <micha...@au1.ibm.com> wrote:
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > > > On Tuesday 14 February 2017 11:19 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > >> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > >> > >>> Autonuma preserves the write permission across numa fault to avoid taking > >>> a writefault after a numa fault (Commit: b191f9b106ea " mm: numa: > >>> preserve PTE > >>> write permissions across a NUMA hinting fault"). Architecture can > >>> implement > >>> protnone in different ways and some may choose to implement that by > >>> clearing Read/ > >>> Write/Exec bit of pte. Setting the write bit on such pte can result in > >>> wrong > >>> behaviour. Fix this up by allowing arch to override how to save the write > >>> bit > >>> on a protnone pte. > >> This is pretty obviously a nop on arches that don't implement the new > >> hooks, but it'd still be good to get an ack from someone in mm land > >> before I merge it. > > > > > > To get it apply cleanly you may need > > http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/mm-autonuma-dont-use-set_pte_at-when-updating-protnone-ptes.patch > > http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/mm-autonuma-dont-use-set_pte_at-when-updating-protnone-ptes-fix.patch > > Ah OK, I missed those. > > In that case these two should probably go via Andrew's tree. Done. But mm-autonuma-dont-use-set_pte_at-when-updating-protnone-ptes.patch is on hold because Aneesh saw a testing issue, so these two are also on hold.
