From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752359Ab3HVAvl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:51:41 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35557 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751648Ab3HVAvj (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:51:39 -0400
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:51:15 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
        Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Xen-devel@lists.xen.org,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dhillf@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Regression: x86/mm: new _PTE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY bit conflicts with
 existing use
Message-ID: <20130822005115.GA1188@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Xen-devel@lists.xen.org,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	dhillf@gmail.com
References: <5214F09002000078000ED5C3@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
 <20130821154238.GV18673@moon>
 <521500E102000078000ED65C@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
 <20130821161946.GW18673@moon>
 <5214F128.1000901@citrix.com>
 <20130821172547.GY18673@moon>
 <20130821181733.GC3814@moon>
 <4fec3e5b-695c-438b-ad6d-55ca50becc4c@email.android.com>
 <20130821190307.GB18673@moon>
 <CA+55aFw_tWio_ABFUocNHU+_RKe-27U9_=4ATfp3-vSWVZkdug@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFw_tWio_ABFUocNHU+_RKe-27U9_=4ATfp3-vSWVZkdug@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:04:54PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
 > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
 > >
 > > I personally don't see bug here because
 > >
 > >  - this swapped page soft dirty bit is set for non-present entries only,
 > >    never for present ones, just at moment we form swap pte entry
 > >
 > >  - i don't find any code which would test for this bit directly without
 > >    is_swap_pte call
 > 
 > Ok, having gone through the places that use swp_*soft_dirty(), I have
 > to agree. Afaik, it's only ever used on a swap-entry that has (by
 > definition) the P bit clear. So with or without Xen, I don't see how
 > it can make any difference.
 > 
 > David/Konrad - did you actually see any issues, or was this just from
 > (mis)reading the code?

Could this explain what I'm seeing in another thread ?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/7/27

	Dave