Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: avoid unnecessary flush on change_huge_pmd()

[Dave Hansen]

On 10/21/21 5:21 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> The first TLB flush is only necessary to prevent the dirty bit (and with
> a lesser importance the access bit) from changing while the PTE is
> modified. However, this is not necessary as the x86 CPUs set the
> dirty-bit atomically with an additional check that the PTE is (still)
> present. One caveat is Intel's Knights Landing that has a bug and does
> not do so.

First, did I miss the check in this patch for X86_BUG_PTE_LEAK?  I don't
see it anywhere.

> -	 * pmdp_invalidate() is required to make sure we don't miss
> -	 * dirty/young flags set by hardware.

This got me thinking...  In here:

> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20160708001909.FB2443E2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

I wrote:

> These bits are truly "stray".  In the case of the Dirty bit, the
> thread associated with the stray set was *not* allowed to write to
> the page.  This means that we do not have to launder the bit(s); we
> can simply ignore them.

Is the goal of your proposed patch here to ensure that the dirty bit is
not set at *all*?  Or, is it to ensure that a dirty bit which we need to
*launder* is never set?