From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7720179CC; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=none Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0CAC0C433C8; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 11:04:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:04:33 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Hyesoo Yu Cc: Alexandru Elisei , David Hildenbrand , will@kernel.org, oliver.upton@linux.dev, maz@kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, arnd@arndb.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, mhiramat@kernel.org, rppt@kernel.org, hughd@google.com, pcc@google.com, steven.price@arm.com, anshuman.khandual@arm.com, vincenzo.frascino@arm.com, eugenis@google.com, kcc@google.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/37] Add support for arm64 MTE dynamic tag storage reuse Message-ID: References: <0b9c122a-c05a-b3df-c69f-85f520294adc@redhat.com> <0cc8a118-2522-f666-5bcc-af06263fd352@redhat.com> <20231025025932.GA3953138@tiffany> <20231025085258.GA1355131@tiffany> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231025085258.GA1355131@tiffany> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 05:52:58PM +0900, Hyesoo Yu wrote: > If we only avoid using ALLOC_CMA for __GFP_TAGGED, would we still be able to use > the next iteration even if the hardware does not support "tag of tag" ? It depends on how the next iteration looks like. The plan was not to support this so that we avoid another complication where a non-tagged page is mprotect'ed to become tagged and it would need to be migrated out of the CMA range. Not sure how much code it would save. > I am not sure every vendor will support tag of tag, since there is no information > related to that feature, like in the Google spec document. If you are aware of any vendors not supporting this, please direct them to the Arm support team, it would be very useful information for us. Thanks. -- Catalin