Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64/mm: Refactor PMD_PRESENT_INVALID and PTE_PROT_NONE bits

[David Hildenbrand]

On 30.04.24 13:11, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 06:15:45PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> > On 29/04/2024 17:20, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 03:02:05PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h
> > > > index dd9ee67d1d87..de62e6881154 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h
> > > > @@ -18,14 +18,7 @@
> > > >   #define PTE_DIRTY		(_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 55)
> > > >   #define PTE_SPECIAL		(_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 56)
> > > >   #define PTE_DEVMAP		(_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 57)
> > > > -#define PTE_PROT_NONE		(_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 58) /* only when !PTE_VALID */
> > > > -
> > > > -/*
> > > > - * This bit indicates that the entry is present i.e. pmd_page()
> > > > - * still points to a valid huge page in memory even if the pmd
> > > > - * has been invalidated.
> > > > - */
> > > > -#define PMD_PRESENT_INVALID	(_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 59) /* only when !PMD_SECT_VALID */
> > > > +#define PTE_INVALID		(_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 59) /* only when !PTE_VALID */
> > >
> > > Nitpick - I prefer the PTE_PRESENT_INVALID name as it makes it clearer
> > > it's a present pte. We already have PTE_VALID, calling it PTE_INVALID
> > > looks like a negation only.
> >
> > Meh, for me the pte can only be valid or invalid if it is present. So it's
> > implicit. And if you have PTE_PRESENT_INVALID you should also have
> > PTE_PRESENT_VALID.
> >
> > We also have pte_mkinvalid(), which is core-mm-defined. In your scheme, surely
> > it should be pte_mkpresent_invalid()?
> >
> > But you're the boss, I'll change this to PTE_PRESENT_INVALID. :-(
>
> TBH, I don't have a strong opinion but best to avoid the bikeshedding.
> I'll leave the decision to you ;). It would match the pmd_mkinvalid()
> core code. But if you drop 'present' make sure you add a comment above
> that it's meant for present ptes.

FWIW, I was confused by

present = valid | invalid

Something like

present = present_valid | present_invalid

would be more obvious at least to me ;)

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb