[PATCH v1] arm64: mm: Don't sleep in split_kernel_leaf_mapping() when in atomic context
Ryan Roberts
ryan.roberts at arm.com
Mon Nov 3 09:28:31 PST 2025
On 03/11/2025 15:38, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
>
>> }
>>
>> +static inline bool force_pte_mapping(void)
>> +{
>> + bool bbml2 = system_capabilities_finalized() ?
>> + system_supports_bbml2_noabort() : cpu_supports_bbml2_noabort();
>
> You are only moving this function. Still, there is some room for improvement I
> want to point out :)
>
> bbml2 could be a const (or a helper function like bbml2_supported).
>
>> +
>> + return (!bbml2 && (rodata_full || arm64_kfence_can_set_direct_map() ||
>> + is_realm_world())) ||
>> + debug_pagealloc_enabled();
>
>
> I suspect this could be made a bit easier to read.
>
> if (debug_pagealloc_enabled())
> return true;
> if (bbml2)
> return false;
> return rodata_full || arm64_kfence_can_set_direct_map() || is_realm_world();
Yeah, I guess that's a bit nicer. I'd prefer to tidy it up in as separate commit
though. (feel free ;-) )
>
>
>> +}
>> +
>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(pgtable_split_lock);
>>
>> int split_kernel_leaf_mapping(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>> @@ -723,6 +733,16 @@ int split_kernel_leaf_mapping(unsigned long start,
>> unsigned long end)
>> if (!system_supports_bbml2_noabort())
>> return 0;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * If the region is within a pte-mapped area, there is no need to try to
>> + * split. Additionally, CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC and CONFIG_KFENCE may
>> + * change permissions from softirq context so for those cases (which are
>> + * always pte-mapped), we must not go any further because taking the
>> + * mutex below may sleep.
>> + */
>> + if (force_pte_mapping() || is_kfence_address((void *)start))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>
> We're effectively performing two system_supports_bbml2_noabort() checks,
> similarly in
> arch_kfence_init_pool().
>
> I wonder if there is a clean way to avoid that.
I thought about this too. But system_supports_bbml2_noabort() is actually a
magic alternatives patching thing; the code is updated so it's zero overhead. I
decided this was the simplest and clearest way to do it. But I'm open to other
ideas...
>
> I'm not super up-to-date on that code. Nothing else jumped at me.
Thanks for the review!
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list