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;
Date:   Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:24:49 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 07/30] mm/swap: Introduce the idea of special swap
 ptes
Message-ID: <20210119142449.GE76571@xz-x1>
References: <20210115170907.24498-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20210115170907.24498-8-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20210118194013.GM4605@ziepe.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210118194013.GM4605@ziepe.ca>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 03:40:13PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Does the stuff in hmm.c need updating too?
> 
>         if (!pte_present(pte)) {
>                 swp_entry_t entry = pte_to_swp_entry(pte);

This idea should be cross-tree, so yes.. even if I'm not 100% sure whether HMM
would be a good candidate for file-backed uffd-wp, I agree we should also take
care of those.

I guess I managed to take care of all the is_swap_pte() callers but forget I
should also look for pte_to_swp_entry() users too, since sometimes pte_none()
and pte_present() is checked separately, so there're quite a few places that I
should have taken care of but got lost.  HMM is one of them.

Thanks for spotting this, Jason.  I'll coordinate in the next version.

-- 
Peter Xu