From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Brian Ruley <brian.ruley@gehealthcare.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Steve Capper <steve.capper@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/arm: pgtable: remove young bit check for pte_valid_user
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2026 17:00:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adfNN33QIOP3VfDm@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <adfDEMK8EbIjPu3J@zoo11.fihel.lab.ge-healthcare.net>
On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 06:17:36PM +0300, Brian Ruley wrote:
> However, in the case I describe, if VA_B is mapped immediately to pfn_q
> after it been has unmapped and freed for VA_A, then it's quite possible
> that the page is still indexed in the cache.
True.
> The hypothesis is that if
> VA_A and VA_B land in the same I-cache set and VA_A old cache entry
> still exists (tagged with pfn_q), then the CPU can fetch stale
> instructions because the tag will match. That's one reason why we need
> to invalidate the cache, but that will be skipped in the path:
>
> migrate_pages
> migrate_pages_batch
> migrate_folio_move
> remove_migration_ptes
> remove_migration_pte
> set_pte_at
> set_ptes
> __sync_icache_dcache (skipped if !young)
> set_pte_ext
In this case, if the old PTE was marked !young, then the new PTE will
have:
pte = pte_mkold(pte);
on it, which marks it !young. As you say, __sync_icache_dcache() will
be skipped. While a PTE entry will be set for the kernel, the code in
set_pte_ext() will *not* establish a hardware PTE entry. For the
2-level pte code:
tst r1, #L_PTE_YOUNG @ <- results in Z being set
tstne r1, #L_PTE_VALID @ <- not executed
eorne r1, r1, #L_PTE_NONE @ <- not executed
tstne r1, #L_PTE_NONE @ <- not executed
moveq r3, #0 @ <- hardware PTE value
ARM( str r3, [r0, #2048]! ) @ <- writes hardware PTE
So, for a !young PTE, the hardware PTE entry is written as zero,
which means accesses should fault, which will then cause the PTE to
be marked young.
For the 3-level case, the L_PTE_YOUNG bit corresponds with the AF bit
in the PTE, and there aren't split Linux / hardware PTE entries. AF
being clear should result in a page fault being generated for the
kernel to handle making the PTE young.
In both of these cases, set_ptes() will need to be called with the
updated PTE which will now be marked young, and that will result in
the I-cache being flushed.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-09 16:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-09 12:54 [PATCH] mm/arm: pgtable: remove young bit check for pte_valid_user Brian Ruley
2026-04-09 13:56 ` Will Deacon
2026-04-09 14:21 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2026-04-09 14:43 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2026-04-09 15:17 ` Brian Ruley
2026-04-09 16:00 ` Russell King (Oracle) [this message]
2026-04-09 14:15 ` Russell King (Oracle)
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=adfNN33QIOP3VfDm@shell.armlinux.org.uk \
--to=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=brian.ruley@gehealthcare.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=steve.capper@arm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox