Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] arm64: mm: implement the architecture-specific clear_flush_young_ptes()

From: Baolin Wang

Date: Mon Feb 09 2026 - 05:13:34 EST




On 2/9/26 5:55 PM, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
On 2/9/26 10:36, Baolin Wang wrote:


On 2/9/26 5:09 PM, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
On 1/29/26 02:42, Baolin Wang wrote:



Indeed. I previously discussed with Ryan whether using pte_cont() was enough, and we believed that invalid PTEs wouldn’t have the PTE_CONT bit set. But we clearly missed the device-folio cases. Thanks for reporting.

Andrew, could you please squash the following fix into this patch? If you prefer a new version, please let me know. Thanks.

Isn't the real problem that we should never ever ever ever, try clearing the young bit on a non-present pte?

See damon_ptep_mkold() how that is handled with the flushing/notify.

There needs to be a pte_present() check in the caller.

The handling of ZONE_DEVICE memory in check_pte() makes me me doubt my earlier understanding. And I think you are right.

     } else if (pte_present(ptent)) {
         pfn = pte_pfn(ptent);
     } else {
         const softleaf_t entry = softleaf_from_pte(ptent);

         /* Handle un-addressable ZONE_DEVICE memory */
         if (!softleaf_is_device_private(entry) &&
             !softleaf_is_device_exclusive(entry))
             return false;

         pfn = softleaf_to_pfn(entry);
     }


BUT

I recall that folio_referenced() should never apply to ZONE_DEVICE folios. folio_referenced() is only called from memory reclaim code, and ZONE_DEVICE pages never get reclaimed through vmscan.c

Thanks for clarifying. So I can drop the pte valid check.

We should probably add a safety check in folio_referenced(), warning
if we would ever get a ZONE_DEVICE folio passed.

Can someone look into that ? :)

Sure, I can take a close look and address that in my follow-up patchset.