Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
References: <31ef1305-1fd4-8159-a2ca-e9968a568ff0@csgroup.eu>
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: mm: Question about the use of 'accessed' flags and pte_young()
 helper
Message-ID: <ed3d1e19-b18b-d10e-2c86-0fb7ce3a431d@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 20 Oct 2020 17:52:07 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.3.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <31ef1305-1fd4-8159-a2ca-e9968a568ff0@csgroup.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/8/20 11:49 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> In a 10 years old commit
> (https://github.com/linuxppc/linux/commit/d069cb4373fe0d451357c4d3769623a7564dfa9f), powerpc 8xx has
> made the handling of PTE accessed bit conditional to CONFIG_SWAP.
> Since then, this has been extended to some other powerpc variants.
> 
> That commit means that when CONFIG_SWAP is not selected, the accessed bit is not set by SW TLB miss
> handlers, leading to pte_young() returning garbage, or should I say possibly returning false
> allthough a page has been accessed since its access flag was reset.
> 
> Looking at various mm/ places, pte_young() is used independent of CONFIG_SWAP
> 
> Is it still valid the not manage accessed flags when CONFIG_SWAP is not selected ?

AFAIK it's wrong, reclaim needs it to detect accessed pages on inactive list, 
via page_referenced(), including file pages (page cache) where CONFIG_SWAP plays 
no role. Maybe it was different 10 years ago.

> If yes, should pte_young() always return true in that case ?

It should best work as intended. If not possible, true is maybe better, as false 
will lead to inactive file list thrashing.

> While we are at it, I'm wondering whether powerpc should redefine arch_faults_on_old_pte()
> On some variants of powerpc, accessed flag is managed by HW. On others, it is managed by SW TLB miss
> handlers via page fault handling.
> 
> Thanks
> Christophe
>