From: Yang Shi <yang@os.amperecomputing.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, david@redhat.com,
ardb@kernel.org, dev.jain@arm.com, scott@os.amperecomputing.com,
cl@gentwo.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: mm: Tidy up force_pte_mapping()
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 12:51:41 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7fce52b9-5c4e-4214-afe2-c1607285aa27@os.amperecomputing.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251106160945.3182799-4-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
On 11/6/25 8:09 AM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> Tidy up the implementation of force_pte_mapping() to make it easier to
> read and introduce the split_leaf_mapping_possible() helper to reduce
> code duplication in split_kernel_leaf_mapping() and
> arch_kfence_init_pool().
>
> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) <david@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Yang Shi <yang@os.amperecomputing.com>
Thanks,
Yang
> ---
> arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> index 652bb8c14035..2ba01dc8ef82 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> @@ -710,12 +710,26 @@ static int split_kernel_leaf_mapping_locked(unsigned long addr)
>
> static inline bool force_pte_mapping(void)
> {
> - bool bbml2 = system_capabilities_finalized() ?
> + const bool bbml2 = system_capabilities_finalized() ?
> system_supports_bbml2_noabort() : cpu_supports_bbml2_noabort();
>
> - return (!bbml2 && (rodata_full || arm64_kfence_can_set_direct_map() ||
> - is_realm_world())) ||
> - debug_pagealloc_enabled();
> + if (debug_pagealloc_enabled())
> + return true;
> + if (bbml2)
> + return false;
> + return rodata_full || arm64_kfence_can_set_direct_map() || is_realm_world();
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool split_leaf_mapping_possible(void)
> +{
> + /*
> + * !BBML2_NOABORT systems should never run into scenarios where we would
> + * have to split. So exit early and let calling code detect it and raise
> + * a warning.
> + */
> + if (!system_supports_bbml2_noabort())
> + return false;
> + return !force_pte_mapping();
> }
>
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(pgtable_split_lock);
> @@ -725,22 +739,11 @@ int split_kernel_leaf_mapping(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> int ret;
>
> /*
> - * !BBML2_NOABORT systems should not be trying to change permissions on
> - * anything that is not pte-mapped in the first place. Just return early
> - * and let the permission change code raise a warning if not already
> - * pte-mapped.
> - */
> - if (!system_supports_bbml2_noabort())
> - return 0;
> -
> - /*
> - * If the region is within a pte-mapped area, there is no need to try to
> - * split. Additionally, CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC and CONFIG_KFENCE may
> - * change permissions from atomic context so for those cases (which are
> - * always pte-mapped), we must not go any further because taking the
> - * mutex below may sleep.
> + * Exit early if the region is within a pte-mapped area or if we can't
> + * split. For the latter case, the permission change code will raise a
> + * warning if not already pte-mapped.
> */
> - if (force_pte_mapping() || is_kfence_address((void *)start))
> + if (!split_leaf_mapping_possible() || is_kfence_address((void *)start))
> return 0;
>
> /*
> @@ -1039,7 +1042,7 @@ bool arch_kfence_init_pool(void)
> int ret;
>
> /* Exit early if we know the linear map is already pte-mapped. */
> - if (!system_supports_bbml2_noabort() || force_pte_mapping())
> + if (!split_leaf_mapping_possible())
> return true;
>
> /* Kfence pool is already pte-mapped for the early init case. */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-06 20:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-06 16:09 [PATCH v2 0/3] Don't sleep in split_kernel_leaf_mapping() when in atomic context Ryan Roberts
2025-11-06 16:09 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: mm: " Ryan Roberts
2025-11-06 20:46 ` Yang Shi
2025-11-07 12:10 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-11-06 21:08 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
2025-11-06 16:09 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: mm: Optimize range_split_to_ptes() Ryan Roberts
2025-11-06 20:47 ` Yang Shi
2025-11-06 16:09 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: mm: Tidy up force_pte_mapping() Ryan Roberts
2025-11-06 20:51 ` Yang Shi [this message]
2025-11-06 21:08 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
2025-11-07 15:53 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Don't sleep in split_kernel_leaf_mapping() when in atomic context Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7fce52b9-5c4e-4214-afe2-c1607285aa27@os.amperecomputing.com \
--to=yang@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=dev.jain@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=scott@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.