[PATCH -v2 1/2] mm: add spurious fault fixing support for huge pmd

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 10:22:57AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes at oracle.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 04:43:14PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > OK this is great, let's put it all in the kdoc for the new shared spurious
> > faulting function! :) and additionally add it to the commit message.
>
> Sure.  Will do it in the next version.

Thanks!

>
> [snip]
>
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
> >> >> index 32e8457ad535..341622ec80e4 100644
> >> >> --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
> >> >> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
> >> >> @@ -1232,6 +1232,10 @@ static inline void arch_swap_restore(swp_entry_t entry, struct folio *folio)
> >> >>  #define flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault(vma, address, ptep) flush_tlb_page(vma, address)
> >> >>  #endif
> >> >>
> >> >> +#ifndef flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault_pmd
> >> >> +#define flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault_pmd(vma, address, ptep) do { } while (0)
> >> >> +#endif
> >> >
> >> > flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault(), when the arch doesn't declare it, defaults to
> >> > flush_tlb_page() - why do we just do nothing in this case here?
> >>
> >> Because all architectures do nothing for the spurious PMD page fault
> >> fixing until the [2/2] of this series.  Where, we make it necessary to
> >> flush the local TLB for spurious PMD page fault fixing on arm64
> >> architecture.
> >>
> >> If we follow the design of flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault(), we need to
> >> change all architecture implementation to do nothing in this patch to
> >> keep the current behavior.  I don't think that it's a good idea.  Do
> >> you agree?
> >
> > Yeah probably we should keep the same behaviour as before, which is
> > obviously, prior to this series, we did nothing.
> >
> > I guess in the PTE case we _always_ want to flush the TLB, whereas in the
> > PMD case we otherwise don't have any need to at the point at which the
> > spurious flush is performed.
> >
> > But from your explanation above re: the stale TLB entry this _only_ needs
> > to be done for architectures which might encounter this problem rather than
> > needing a TLB flush in general.
> >
> > Given we're generalising the code and one case always flushes the TLB and
> > the other doesn't maybe it's worth putting a comment in the generalised
> > function mentioning this?
>
> I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to document architecture behaviors
> in the general code.  The behavior may be changed architecture by
> architecture in the future.

Right, but we are unconditionaly doing a TLB flush in the PTE case but not PMD
so let's document that to be clear :)

>
> [snip]
>
> ---
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying