[PATCH] Loongarch:Make pte/pmd_modify can set _PAGE_MODIFIED

Tianyang Zhang posted 1 patch 1 month, 2 weeks ago
arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
[PATCH] Loongarch:Make pte/pmd_modify can set _PAGE_MODIFIED
Posted by Tianyang Zhang 1 month, 2 weeks ago
In the current pte_modify operation, _PAGE_DIRTY might be cleared. Since
the hardware-page-walk does not have a predefined _PAGE_MODIFIED flag,
this could lead to loss of valid data in certain scenarios.

The new modification involves checking whether the original PTE has the
_PAGE_DIRTY flag. If it exists, the _PAGE_MODIFIED bit is set, ensuring
that the pte_dirty interface can return accurate information.

Co-developed-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
Signed-off-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
Signed-off-by: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn>
---
 arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
index bd128696e96d..106abfa5183b 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
+++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
@@ -424,8 +424,13 @@ static inline unsigned long pte_accessible(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
 
 static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
 {
-	return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
-		     (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
+	unsigned long val = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
+		     (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
+
+	if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
+		val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
+
+	return __pte(val);
 }
 
 extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
@@ -547,9 +552,13 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
 
 static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
 {
-	pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
+	unsigned long val = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
 				(pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
-	return pmd;
+
+	if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
+		val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
+
+	return __pmd(val);
 }
 
 static inline pmd_t pmd_mkinvalid(pmd_t pmd)
-- 
2.41.0
Re: [PATCH] Loongarch:Make pte/pmd_modify can set _PAGE_MODIFIED
Posted by Bibo Mao 1 month, 1 week ago

On 2025/11/4 下午3:30, Tianyang Zhang wrote:
> In the current pte_modify operation, _PAGE_DIRTY might be cleared. Since
> the hardware-page-walk does not have a predefined _PAGE_MODIFIED flag,
> this could lead to loss of valid data in certain scenarios.
> 
> The new modification involves checking whether the original PTE has the
> _PAGE_DIRTY flag. If it exists, the _PAGE_MODIFIED bit is set, ensuring
> that the pte_dirty interface can return accurate information.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn>
> ---
>   arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> index bd128696e96d..106abfa5183b 100644
> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> @@ -424,8 +424,13 @@ static inline unsigned long pte_accessible(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>   
>   static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>   {
> -	return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> -		     (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
> +	unsigned long val = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> +		     (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
> +
> +	if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
> +		val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
Since ptep_get_and_clear() is not atomic operation on LoongArch like 
other architectures, considering this scenery with HW PTW enabled:
     CPU 0:                         CPU1
                              old_pte = ptep_modify_prot_start(); 

                                   old_pte = ptep_get(ptep);

     write(buf);
*HW will set _PAGE_DIRTY bit*
                                   pte_clear(mm, address, ptep);
^^^^^^^^^^ For CPU1, bit _PAGE_DIRTY is no set in old_pte, _PAGE_DIRTY 
will be lost also. ^^^^^^^^^^^
                              pte = pte_modify(old_pte,)
                              ptep_modify_prot_commit(.., pte)

Regards
Bibo Mao
> +
> +	return __pte(val);
>   }
>   
>   extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> @@ -547,9 +552,13 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>   
>   static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>   {
> -	pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> +	unsigned long val = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>   				(pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
> -	return pmd;
> +
> +	if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
> +		val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
> +
> +	return __pmd(val);
>   }
>   
>   static inline pmd_t pmd_mkinvalid(pmd_t pmd)
> 

Re: [PATCH] Loongarch:Make pte/pmd_modify can set _PAGE_MODIFIED
Posted by Tianyang Zhang 1 month, 1 week ago
在 2025/11/6 下午3:07, Bibo Mao 写道:
>
>
> On 2025/11/4 下午3:30, Tianyang Zhang wrote:
>> In the current pte_modify operation, _PAGE_DIRTY might be cleared. Since
>> the hardware-page-walk does not have a predefined _PAGE_MODIFIED flag,
>> this could lead to loss of valid data in certain scenarios.
>>
>> The new modification involves checking whether the original PTE has the
>> _PAGE_DIRTY flag. If it exists, the _PAGE_MODIFIED bit is set, ensuring
>> that the pte_dirty interface can return accurate information.
>>
>> Co-developed-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>> Signed-off-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>> Signed-off-by: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn>
>> ---
>>   arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h 
>> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index bd128696e96d..106abfa5183b 100644
>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -424,8 +424,13 @@ static inline unsigned long 
>> pte_accessible(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>>     static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>   {
>> -    return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>> -             (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>> +    unsigned long val = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>> +             (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>> +
>> +    if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>> +        val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
> Since ptep_get_and_clear() is not atomic operation on LoongArch like 
> other architectures, considering this scenery with HW PTW enabled:
>     CPU 0:                         CPU1
>                              old_pte = ptep_modify_prot_start();
>                                   old_pte = ptep_get(ptep);
>
>     write(buf);
> *HW will set _PAGE_DIRTY bit*
>                                   pte_clear(mm, address, ptep);
> ^^^^^^^^^^ For CPU1, bit _PAGE_DIRTY is no set in old_pte, _PAGE_DIRTY 
> will be lost also. ^^^^^^^^^^^
>                              pte = pte_modify(old_pte,)
>                              ptep_modify_prot_commit(.., pte)

There does appear to be an issue here. It seems we should use 
`__HAVE_ARCH_PTEP_GET_AND_CLEAR` and implement ptep_get_and_clear via 
`atomic_xchg`.

However, I believe this change should be submitted in a new patch.

Thanks

Tianyang

>
> Regards
> Bibo Mao
>> +
>> +    return __pte(val);
>>   }
>>     extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> @@ -547,9 +552,13 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>>     static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>>   {
>> -    pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>> +    unsigned long val = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>                   (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>> -    return pmd;
>> +
>> +    if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>> +        val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>> +
>> +    return __pmd(val);
>>   }
>>     static inline pmd_t pmd_mkinvalid(pmd_t pmd)
>>

Re: [PATCH] Loongarch:Make pte/pmd_modify can set _PAGE_MODIFIED
Posted by Huacai Chen 1 month, 2 weeks ago
Hi, Tianyang,

The subject line can be:
LoongArch: Let {pte,pmd}_modify() record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY (If
I'm right in the later comments).

On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 3:30 PM Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
>
> In the current pte_modify operation, _PAGE_DIRTY might be cleared. Since
> the hardware-page-walk does not have a predefined _PAGE_MODIFIED flag,
> this could lead to loss of valid data in certain scenarios.
>
> The new modification involves checking whether the original PTE has the
> _PAGE_DIRTY flag. If it exists, the _PAGE_MODIFIED bit is set, ensuring
> that the pte_dirty interface can return accurate information.
The description may be wrong here. Because pte_dirty() returns
pte_val(pte) & (_PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_MODIFIED).
If _PAGE_DIRTY isn't lost, pte_dirty() is always right, no matter
whether there is or isn't _PAGE_MODIFIED.

I think the real reason is we need to set _PAGE_MODIFIED in
pte/pmd_modify to record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY, so that we can
recover _PAGE_DIRTY afterwards, such as in pte/pmd_mkwrite().

>
> Co-developed-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn>
> ---
>  arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> index bd128696e96d..106abfa5183b 100644
> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> @@ -424,8 +424,13 @@ static inline unsigned long pte_accessible(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>
>  static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>  {
> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
> +       unsigned long val = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> +                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
> +
> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
> +
> +       return __pte(val);
>  }
>
>  extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> @@ -547,9 +552,13 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>
>  static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>  {
> -       pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> +       unsigned long val = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>                                 (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
> -       return pmd;
> +
> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
> +
> +       return __pmd(val);
>  }
A minimal modification can be:
diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
index 1f20e9280062..907ece0199e0 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
+++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
@@ -448,8 +448,13 @@ static inline unsigned long pte_accessible(struct
mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)

 static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
 {
-       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
-                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
+       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
+                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
+
+       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
+               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
+
+       return pte;
 }

 extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
@@ -583,7 +588,11 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
 static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
 {
        pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
-                               (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
+                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
+
+       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
+               pmd_val(pmd) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
+
        return pmd;
 }

You needn't define a new variable.


Huacai

>
>  static inline pmd_t pmd_mkinvalid(pmd_t pmd)
> --
> 2.41.0
>
>
Re: [PATCH] Loongarch:Make pte/pmd_modify can set _PAGE_MODIFIED
Posted by Tianyang Zhang 1 month, 2 weeks ago
Hi, Huacai

在 2025/11/4 下午4:00, Huacai Chen 写道:
> Hi, Tianyang,
>
> The subject line can be:
> LoongArch: Let {pte,pmd}_modify() record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY (If
> I'm right in the later comments).
Ok. I got it
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 3:30 PM Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
>> In the current pte_modify operation, _PAGE_DIRTY might be cleared. Since
>> the hardware-page-walk does not have a predefined _PAGE_MODIFIED flag,
>> this could lead to loss of valid data in certain scenarios.
>>
>> The new modification involves checking whether the original PTE has the
>> _PAGE_DIRTY flag. If it exists, the _PAGE_MODIFIED bit is set, ensuring
>> that the pte_dirty interface can return accurate information.
> The description may be wrong here. Because pte_dirty() returns
> pte_val(pte) & (_PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_MODIFIED).
> If _PAGE_DIRTY isn't lost, pte_dirty() is always right, no matter
> whether there is or isn't _PAGE_MODIFIED.
>
> I think the real reason is we need to set _PAGE_MODIFIED in
> pte/pmd_modify to record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY, so that we can
> recover _PAGE_DIRTY afterwards, such as in pte/pmd_mkwrite().
Ok, I will adjust the description
>
>> Co-developed-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>> Signed-off-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>> Signed-off-by: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn>
>> ---
>>   arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index bd128696e96d..106abfa5183b 100644
>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -424,8 +424,13 @@ static inline unsigned long pte_accessible(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>>
>>   static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>   {
>> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>> +       unsigned long val = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>> +                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>> +
>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>> +
>> +       return __pte(val);
>>   }
>>
>>   extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> @@ -547,9 +552,13 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>>
>>   static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>>   {
>> -       pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>> +       unsigned long val = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>                                  (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>> -       return pmd;
>> +
>> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>> +
>> +       return __pmd(val);
>>   }
> A minimal modification can be:
> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> index 1f20e9280062..907ece0199e0 100644
> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> @@ -448,8 +448,13 @@ static inline unsigned long pte_accessible(struct
> mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>
>   static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>   {
> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
> +       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
> +
> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
> +               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
> +
> +       return pte;
>   }

+       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
+                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);

After this step, _PAGE_DIRTY may have already disappeared,
If no new variables are added, they can be modified in follow way:

  static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
  {
+       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
+               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
+
        return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
	 (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));

  }

>
>   extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> @@ -583,7 +588,11 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>   static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>   {
>          pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> -                               (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
> +
> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
> +               pmd_val(pmd) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
> +
>          return pmd;
>   }
>
> You needn't define a new variable.
>
>
> Huacai
>
>>   static inline pmd_t pmd_mkinvalid(pmd_t pmd)
>> --
>> 2.41.0
>>
>>
Thanks

Tianyang

Re: [PATCH] Loongarch:Make pte/pmd_modify can set _PAGE_MODIFIED
Posted by Huacai Chen 1 month, 2 weeks ago
On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 8:57 AM Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
>
> Hi, Huacai
>
> 在 2025/11/4 下午4:00, Huacai Chen 写道:
> > Hi, Tianyang,
> >
> > The subject line can be:
> > LoongArch: Let {pte,pmd}_modify() record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY (If
> > I'm right in the later comments).
> Ok. I got it
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 3:30 PM Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
> >> In the current pte_modify operation, _PAGE_DIRTY might be cleared. Since
> >> the hardware-page-walk does not have a predefined _PAGE_MODIFIED flag,
> >> this could lead to loss of valid data in certain scenarios.
> >>
> >> The new modification involves checking whether the original PTE has the
> >> _PAGE_DIRTY flag. If it exists, the _PAGE_MODIFIED bit is set, ensuring
> >> that the pte_dirty interface can return accurate information.
> > The description may be wrong here. Because pte_dirty() returns
> > pte_val(pte) & (_PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_MODIFIED).
> > If _PAGE_DIRTY isn't lost, pte_dirty() is always right, no matter
> > whether there is or isn't _PAGE_MODIFIED.
> >
> > I think the real reason is we need to set _PAGE_MODIFIED in
> > pte/pmd_modify to record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY, so that we can
> > recover _PAGE_DIRTY afterwards, such as in pte/pmd_mkwrite().
> Ok, I will adjust the description
After some thinking, your original description may be right. Without
this patch the scenario maybe like this:
The pte is dirty _PAGE_DIRTY but without _PAGE_MODIFIED, after
pte_modify() we lose _PAGE_DIRTY, then pte_dirty() returns false. So
we need _PAGE_MODIFIED to record _PAGE_DIRTY here.

But the description also needs to be updated.

> >
> >> Co-developed-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
> >> Signed-off-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn>
> >> ---
> >>   arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
> >>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >> index bd128696e96d..106abfa5183b 100644
> >> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> >> @@ -424,8 +424,13 @@ static inline unsigned long pte_accessible(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
> >>
> >>   static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
> >>   {
> >> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> >> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
> >> +       unsigned long val = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> >> +                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
> >> +
> >> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
> >> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
> >> +
> >> +       return __pte(val);
> >>   }
> >>
> >>   extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> @@ -547,9 +552,13 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
> >>
> >>   static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
> >>   {
> >> -       pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> >> +       unsigned long val = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> >>                                  (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
> >> -       return pmd;
> >> +
> >> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
> >> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
> >> +
> >> +       return __pmd(val);
> >>   }
> > A minimal modification can be:
> > diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> > b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> > index 1f20e9280062..907ece0199e0 100644
> > --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> > +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
> > @@ -448,8 +448,13 @@ static inline unsigned long pte_accessible(struct
> > mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
> >
> >   static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
> >   {
> > -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> > -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
> > +       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> > +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
> > +
> > +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
> > +               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
> > +
> > +       return pte;
> >   }
>
> +       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>
> After this step, _PAGE_DIRTY may have already disappeared,
> If no new variables are added, they can be modified in follow way:
>
>   static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>   {
> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
> +               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
> +
>         return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>          (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>
>   }
OK, it makes sense.

Huacai
>
> >
> >   extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > @@ -583,7 +588,11 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
> >   static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
> >   {
> >          pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> > -                               (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
> > +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
> > +
> > +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
> > +               pmd_val(pmd) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
> > +
> >          return pmd;
> >   }
> >
> > You needn't define a new variable.
> >
> >
> > Huacai
> >
> >>   static inline pmd_t pmd_mkinvalid(pmd_t pmd)
> >> --
> >> 2.41.0
> >>
> >>
> Thanks
>
> Tianyang
>
Re: [PATCH] Loongarch:Make pte/pmd_modify can set _PAGE_MODIFIED
Posted by Bibo Mao 1 month, 2 weeks ago

On 2025/11/5 上午9:07, Huacai Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 8:57 AM Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Huacai
>>
>> 在 2025/11/4 下午4:00, Huacai Chen 写道:
>>> Hi, Tianyang,
>>>
>>> The subject line can be:
>>> LoongArch: Let {pte,pmd}_modify() record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY (If
>>> I'm right in the later comments).
>> Ok. I got it
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 3:30 PM Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>>> In the current pte_modify operation, _PAGE_DIRTY might be cleared. Since
>>>> the hardware-page-walk does not have a predefined _PAGE_MODIFIED flag,
>>>> this could lead to loss of valid data in certain scenarios.
>>>>
>>>> The new modification involves checking whether the original PTE has the
>>>> _PAGE_DIRTY flag. If it exists, the _PAGE_MODIFIED bit is set, ensuring
>>>> that the pte_dirty interface can return accurate information.
>>> The description may be wrong here. Because pte_dirty() returns
>>> pte_val(pte) & (_PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_MODIFIED).
>>> If _PAGE_DIRTY isn't lost, pte_dirty() is always right, no matter
>>> whether there is or isn't _PAGE_MODIFIED.
>>>
>>> I think the real reason is we need to set _PAGE_MODIFIED in
>>> pte/pmd_modify to record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY, so that we can
>>> recover _PAGE_DIRTY afterwards, such as in pte/pmd_mkwrite().
>> Ok, I will adjust the description
> After some thinking, your original description may be right. Without
> this patch the scenario maybe like this:
> The pte is dirty _PAGE_DIRTY but without _PAGE_MODIFIED, after
> pte_modify() we lose _PAGE_DIRTY, then pte_dirty() returns false. So
> we need _PAGE_MODIFIED to record _PAGE_DIRTY here.
In theory pte_modify() is to modify RWX attribute. I think that it is a 
tricky to remove _PAGE_DIRTY and add _PAGE_MODIFIED with HW PTW system.

Also _PAGE_ACCESSED is lost with pte_modify() API, is there any 
influence with HW PTW system, or wait until possible problems coming out.

Regards
Bibo Mao
> 
> But the description also needs to be updated.
> 
>>>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn>
>>>> ---
>>>>    arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
>>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>> index bd128696e96d..106abfa5183b 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>> @@ -424,8 +424,13 @@ static inline unsigned long pte_accessible(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>>>>
>>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>    {
>>>> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>>> +       unsigned long val = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>> +                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>> +
>>>> +       return __pte(val);
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>>    extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>> @@ -547,9 +552,13 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>
>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>    {
>>>> -       pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>> +       unsigned long val = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>                                   (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>> -       return pmd;
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>> +
>>>> +       return __pmd(val);
>>>>    }
>>> A minimal modification can be:
>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> index 1f20e9280062..907ece0199e0 100644
>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> @@ -448,8 +448,13 @@ static inline unsigned long pte_accessible(struct
>>> mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>>>
>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>    {
>>> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>> +       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>> +
>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>> +               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>> +
>>> +       return pte;
>>>    }
>>
>> +       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>
>> After this step, _PAGE_DIRTY may have already disappeared,
>> If no new variables are added, they can be modified in follow way:
>>
>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>    {
>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>> +               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>> +
>>          return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>           (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>
>>    }
> OK, it makes sense.
> 
> Huacai
>>
>>>
>>>    extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> @@ -583,7 +588,11 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>    {
>>>           pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>> -                               (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>> +
>>> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>> +               pmd_val(pmd) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>> +
>>>           return pmd;
>>>    }
>>>
>>> You needn't define a new variable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Huacai
>>>
>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_mkinvalid(pmd_t pmd)
>>>> --
>>>> 2.41.0
>>>>
>>>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Tianyang
>>

Re: [PATCH] Loongarch:Make pte/pmd_modify can set _PAGE_MODIFIED
Posted by Tianyang Zhang 1 month, 1 week ago
Hi ,Bibao

在 2025/11/5 上午9:18, Bibo Mao 写道:
>
>
> On 2025/11/5 上午9:07, Huacai Chen wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 8:57 AM Tianyang Zhang 
>> <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Huacai
>>>
>>> 在 2025/11/4 下午4:00, Huacai Chen 写道:
>>>> Hi, Tianyang,
>>>>
>>>> The subject line can be:
>>>> LoongArch: Let {pte,pmd}_modify() record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY (If
>>>> I'm right in the later comments).
>>> Ok. I got it
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 3:30 PM Tianyang Zhang 
>>>> <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>>>> In the current pte_modify operation, _PAGE_DIRTY might be cleared. 
>>>>> Since
>>>>> the hardware-page-walk does not have a predefined _PAGE_MODIFIED 
>>>>> flag,
>>>>> this could lead to loss of valid data in certain scenarios.
>>>>>
>>>>> The new modification involves checking whether the original PTE 
>>>>> has the
>>>>> _PAGE_DIRTY flag. If it exists, the _PAGE_MODIFIED bit is set, 
>>>>> ensuring
>>>>> that the pte_dirty interface can return accurate information.
>>>> The description may be wrong here. Because pte_dirty() returns
>>>> pte_val(pte) & (_PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_MODIFIED).
>>>> If _PAGE_DIRTY isn't lost, pte_dirty() is always right, no matter
>>>> whether there is or isn't _PAGE_MODIFIED.
>>>>
>>>> I think the real reason is we need to set _PAGE_MODIFIED in
>>>> pte/pmd_modify to record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY, so that we can
>>>> recover _PAGE_DIRTY afterwards, such as in pte/pmd_mkwrite().
>>> Ok, I will adjust the description
>> After some thinking, your original description may be right. Without
>> this patch the scenario maybe like this:
>> The pte is dirty _PAGE_DIRTY but without _PAGE_MODIFIED, after
>> pte_modify() we lose _PAGE_DIRTY, then pte_dirty() returns false. So
>> we need _PAGE_MODIFIED to record _PAGE_DIRTY here.
> In theory pte_modify() is to modify RWX attribute. I think that it is 
> a tricky to remove _PAGE_DIRTY and add _PAGE_MODIFIED with HW PTW system.
>
> Also _PAGE_ACCESSED is lost with pte_modify() API, is there any 
> influence with HW PTW system, or wait until possible problems coming out.

static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
{
         return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
                      (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
}
In my understand, During the  pte_modify process, it is essential to 
ensure that specific bits are inherited from the original PTE rather 
than simply replaced(as set_pte),

this guarantees the coherent operation of the memory management system.

Since _PAGE_CHG_MASK explicitly requires preserving pte_modified, and 
there is an inherent correlation between pte_dirty and pte_modified, 
these attributes must be evaluated and handled accordingly.

The pte_valid attribute, being a hardware property, is inherently the 
target of modification in the pte_modify interface. Therefore, it is 
reasonable not to preserve it.

Thanks

Tianyang

>
> Regards
> Bibo Mao
>>
>> But the description also needs to be updated.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Co-developed-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
>>>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h 
>>>>> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>> index bd128696e96d..106abfa5183b 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>> @@ -424,8 +424,13 @@ static inline unsigned long 
>>>>> pte_accessible(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>>>>>
>>>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>    {
>>>>> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>>>> +       unsigned long val = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>> +                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       return __pte(val);
>>>>>    }
>>>>>
>>>>>    extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>> @@ -547,9 +552,13 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>>
>>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>    {
>>>>> -       pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>> +       unsigned long val = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>                                   (pgprot_val(newprot) & 
>>>>> ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>> -       return pmd;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       return __pmd(val);
>>>>>    }
>>>> A minimal modification can be:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>> index 1f20e9280062..907ece0199e0 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>> @@ -448,8 +448,13 @@ static inline unsigned long pte_accessible(struct
>>>> mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>>>>
>>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>    {
>>>> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>>> +       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>> +               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>> +
>>>> +       return pte;
>>>>    }
>>>
>>> +       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>
>>> After this step, _PAGE_DIRTY may have already disappeared,
>>> If no new variables are added, they can be modified in follow way:
>>>
>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>    {
>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>> +               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>> +
>>>          return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>           (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>>
>>>    }
>> OK, it makes sense.
>>
>> Huacai
>>>
>>>>
>>>>    extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>> @@ -583,7 +588,11 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>    {
>>>>           pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>> -                               (pgprot_val(newprot) & 
>>>> ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>> +               pmd_val(pmd) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>> +
>>>>           return pmd;
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> You needn't define a new variable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Huacai
>>>>
>>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_mkinvalid(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 2.41.0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Tianyang
>>>

Re: [PATCH] Loongarch:Make pte/pmd_modify can set _PAGE_MODIFIED
Posted by Bibo Mao 1 month, 1 week ago

On 2025/11/6 上午9:55, Tianyang Zhang wrote:
> Hi ,Bibao
> 
> 在 2025/11/5 上午9:18, Bibo Mao 写道:
>>
>>
>> On 2025/11/5 上午9:07, Huacai Chen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 8:57 AM Tianyang Zhang 
>>> <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Huacai
>>>>
>>>> 在 2025/11/4 下午4:00, Huacai Chen 写道:
>>>>> Hi, Tianyang,
>>>>>
>>>>> The subject line can be:
>>>>> LoongArch: Let {pte,pmd}_modify() record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY (If
>>>>> I'm right in the later comments).
>>>> Ok. I got it
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 3:30 PM Tianyang Zhang 
>>>>> <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>>>>> In the current pte_modify operation, _PAGE_DIRTY might be cleared. 
>>>>>> Since
>>>>>> the hardware-page-walk does not have a predefined _PAGE_MODIFIED 
>>>>>> flag,
>>>>>> this could lead to loss of valid data in certain scenarios.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The new modification involves checking whether the original PTE 
>>>>>> has the
>>>>>> _PAGE_DIRTY flag. If it exists, the _PAGE_MODIFIED bit is set, 
>>>>>> ensuring
>>>>>> that the pte_dirty interface can return accurate information.
>>>>> The description may be wrong here. Because pte_dirty() returns
>>>>> pte_val(pte) & (_PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_MODIFIED).
>>>>> If _PAGE_DIRTY isn't lost, pte_dirty() is always right, no matter
>>>>> whether there is or isn't _PAGE_MODIFIED.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the real reason is we need to set _PAGE_MODIFIED in
>>>>> pte/pmd_modify to record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY, so that we can
>>>>> recover _PAGE_DIRTY afterwards, such as in pte/pmd_mkwrite().
>>>> Ok, I will adjust the description
>>> After some thinking, your original description may be right. Without
>>> this patch the scenario maybe like this:
>>> The pte is dirty _PAGE_DIRTY but without _PAGE_MODIFIED, after
>>> pte_modify() we lose _PAGE_DIRTY, then pte_dirty() returns false. So
>>> we need _PAGE_MODIFIED to record _PAGE_DIRTY here.
>> In theory pte_modify() is to modify RWX attribute. I think that it is 
>> a tricky to remove _PAGE_DIRTY and add _PAGE_MODIFIED with HW PTW system.
>>
>> Also _PAGE_ACCESSED is lost with pte_modify() API, is there any 
>> influence with HW PTW system, or wait until possible problems coming out.
> 
> static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
> {
>          return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
> }
> In my understand, During the  pte_modify process, it is essential to 
> ensure that specific bits are inherited from the original PTE rather 
> than simply replaced(as set_pte),
> 
> this guarantees the coherent operation of the memory management system.
> 
> Since _PAGE_CHG_MASK explicitly requires preserving pte_modified, and 
The problem is how _PAGE_CHG_MASK should be defined, do you check with 
other architectures?
> there is an inherent correlation between pte_dirty and pte_modified, 
> these attributes must be evaluated and handled accordingly.
> 
> The pte_valid attribute, being a hardware property, is inherently the 
> target of modification in the pte_modify interface. Therefore, it is 
> reasonable not to preserve it.
On HW PTW system, _PAGE_PRESENT will control whether trigger page fault 
rather than pte_valid/_PAGE_ACCESSED. For simple, do you think the 
following code is ok or not ?

  static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
  {
-       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
-                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
+       unsigned long mask = _PAGE_CHG_MASK;
+
+       if (cpu_has_ptw)
+               mask |= _PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_ACCESSED;
+       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & mask) |
+                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~mask));
  }

Regards
Bibo Mao

> 
> Thanks
> 
> Tianyang
> 
>>
>> Regards
>> Bibo Mao
>>>
>>> But the description also needs to be updated.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Co-developed-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h 
>>>>>> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>> index bd128696e96d..106abfa5183b 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>> @@ -424,8 +424,13 @@ static inline unsigned long 
>>>>>> pte_accessible(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>>    {
>>>>>> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>>>>> +       unsigned long val = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>> +                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>>> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +       return __pte(val);
>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>> @@ -547,9 +552,13 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>>    {
>>>>>> -       pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>> +       unsigned long val = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>>                                   (pgprot_val(newprot) & 
>>>>>> ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>> -       return pmd;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>>> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +       return __pmd(val);
>>>>>>    }
>>>>> A minimal modification can be:
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>> index 1f20e9280062..907ece0199e0 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>> @@ -448,8 +448,13 @@ static inline unsigned long pte_accessible(struct
>>>>> mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>>>>>
>>>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>    {
>>>>> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>>>> +       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>> +               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       return pte;
>>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> +       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>
>>>> After this step, _PAGE_DIRTY may have already disappeared,
>>>> If no new variables are added, they can be modified in follow way:
>>>>
>>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>    {
>>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>> +               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>> +
>>>>          return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>           (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>>>
>>>>    }
>>> OK, it makes sense.
>>>
>>> Huacai
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>> @@ -583,7 +588,11 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>    {
>>>>>           pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>> -                               (pgprot_val(newprot) & 
>>>>> ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>> +               pmd_val(pmd) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>> +
>>>>>           return pmd;
>>>>>    }
>>>>>
>>>>> You needn't define a new variable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Huacai
>>>>>
>>>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_mkinvalid(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 2.41.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Tianyang
>>>>

Re: [PATCH] Loongarch:Make pte/pmd_modify can set _PAGE_MODIFIED
Posted by Tianyang Zhang 1 month, 1 week ago
在 2025/11/6 上午10:10, Bibo Mao 写道:
>
>
> On 2025/11/6 上午9:55, Tianyang Zhang wrote:
>> Hi ,Bibao
>>
>> 在 2025/11/5 上午9:18, Bibo Mao 写道:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2025/11/5 上午9:07, Huacai Chen wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 8:57 AM Tianyang Zhang 
>>>> <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Huacai
>>>>>
>>>>> 在 2025/11/4 下午4:00, Huacai Chen 写道:
>>>>>> Hi, Tianyang,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The subject line can be:
>>>>>> LoongArch: Let {pte,pmd}_modify() record the status of 
>>>>>> _PAGE_DIRTY (If
>>>>>> I'm right in the later comments).
>>>>> Ok. I got it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 3:30 PM Tianyang Zhang 
>>>>>> <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>>>>>> In the current pte_modify operation, _PAGE_DIRTY might be 
>>>>>>> cleared. Since
>>>>>>> the hardware-page-walk does not have a predefined _PAGE_MODIFIED 
>>>>>>> flag,
>>>>>>> this could lead to loss of valid data in certain scenarios.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The new modification involves checking whether the original PTE 
>>>>>>> has the
>>>>>>> _PAGE_DIRTY flag. If it exists, the _PAGE_MODIFIED bit is set, 
>>>>>>> ensuring
>>>>>>> that the pte_dirty interface can return accurate information.
>>>>>> The description may be wrong here. Because pte_dirty() returns
>>>>>> pte_val(pte) & (_PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_MODIFIED).
>>>>>> If _PAGE_DIRTY isn't lost, pte_dirty() is always right, no matter
>>>>>> whether there is or isn't _PAGE_MODIFIED.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the real reason is we need to set _PAGE_MODIFIED in
>>>>>> pte/pmd_modify to record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY, so that we can
>>>>>> recover _PAGE_DIRTY afterwards, such as in pte/pmd_mkwrite().
>>>>> Ok, I will adjust the description
>>>> After some thinking, your original description may be right. Without
>>>> this patch the scenario maybe like this:
>>>> The pte is dirty _PAGE_DIRTY but without _PAGE_MODIFIED, after
>>>> pte_modify() we lose _PAGE_DIRTY, then pte_dirty() returns false. So
>>>> we need _PAGE_MODIFIED to record _PAGE_DIRTY here.
>>> In theory pte_modify() is to modify RWX attribute. I think that it 
>>> is a tricky to remove _PAGE_DIRTY and add _PAGE_MODIFIED with HW PTW 
>>> system.
>>>
>>> Also _PAGE_ACCESSED is lost with pte_modify() API, is there any 
>>> influence with HW PTW system, or wait until possible problems coming 
>>> out.
>>
>> static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>> {
>>          return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>> }
>> In my understand, During the  pte_modify process, it is essential to 
>> ensure that specific bits are inherited from the original PTE rather 
>> than simply replaced(as set_pte),
>>
>> this guarantees the coherent operation of the memory management system.
>>
>> Since _PAGE_CHG_MASK explicitly requires preserving pte_modified, and 
> The problem is how _PAGE_CHG_MASK should be defined, do you check with 
> other architectures?

Under mainstream architectures(like ARM64/X86 ), if the pte_modify 
interface clears the hard-dirty flag, it will set the soft-dirty flag 
through some mechanism.

Thus, at least from the perspective of PAGE_DIRTY logic, this approach 
is right.

>> there is an inherent correlation between pte_dirty and pte_modified, 
>> these attributes must be evaluated and handled accordingly.
>>
>> The pte_valid attribute, being a hardware property, is inherently the 
>> target of modification in the pte_modify interface. Therefore, it is 
>> reasonable not to preserve it.
> On HW PTW system, _PAGE_PRESENT will control whether trigger page 
> fault rather than pte_valid/_PAGE_ACCESSED. For simple, do you think 
> the following code is ok or not ?

"On HW PTW system, _PAGE_PRESENT will control whether trigger page fault 
rather than pte_valid/_PAGE_ACCESSED"

Yes, indeed, in many cases, PAGE_PRESENT is precisely the cleanup target 
of pte_modify.

>
>  static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>  {
> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
> +       unsigned long mask = _PAGE_CHG_MASK;
> +
> +       if (cpu_has_ptw)
> +               mask |= _PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_ACCESSED;
> +       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & mask) |
> +                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~mask));
>  }
>
This modification is inappropriate.

Firstly, _PAGE_ACCESSED(bit 0, as _PAGE_PRESENT) and _PAGE_DIRTY bits 
are inherently the targets of pte_modify operations. Some 
sub-memory-system like numa_balance precisely rely on

clearing these bits to trigger hardware exceptions and complete 
subsequent processes, this appears to be unrelated to hardware-ptw

And, under hardware-ptw scenarios, the WRITE=0 && DIRTY=1 condition 
should never occur, therefore, we cannot preserve the DIRTY bit in advance.

Thanks

Tianyang

> Regards
> Bibo Mao
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Tianyang
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Bibo Mao
>>>>
>>>> But the description also needs to be updated.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Co-developed-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>    arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
>>>>>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h 
>>>>>>> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>>> index bd128696e96d..106abfa5183b 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>>> @@ -424,8 +424,13 @@ static inline unsigned long 
>>>>>>> pte_accessible(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>>>    {
>>>>>>> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>>> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>>>>>> +       unsigned long val = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>>> +                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>>>> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +       return __pte(val);
>>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>>> @@ -547,9 +552,13 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>>>    {
>>>>>>> -       pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>>> +       unsigned long val = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>>>                                   (pgprot_val(newprot) & 
>>>>>>> ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>>> -       return pmd;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>>>> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +       return __pmd(val);
>>>>>>>    }
>>>>>> A minimal modification can be:
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>> index 1f20e9280062..907ece0199e0 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>> @@ -448,8 +448,13 @@ static inline unsigned long 
>>>>>> pte_accessible(struct
>>>>>> mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>>    {
>>>>>> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>>>>> +       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>>> +               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +       return pte;
>>>>>>    }
>>>>>
>>>>> +       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>
>>>>> After this step, _PAGE_DIRTY may have already disappeared,
>>>>> If no new variables are added, they can be modified in follow way:
>>>>>
>>>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>    {
>>>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>> +               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>> +
>>>>>          return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>           (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>>>>
>>>>>    }
>>>> OK, it makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> Huacai
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>> @@ -583,7 +588,11 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>>    {
>>>>>>           pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>> -                               (pgprot_val(newprot) & 
>>>>>> ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>>> +               pmd_val(pmd) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>           return pmd;
>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You needn't define a new variable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huacai
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_mkinvalid(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> 2.41.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Tianyang
>>>>>

Re: [PATCH] Loongarch:Make pte/pmd_modify can set _PAGE_MODIFIED
Posted by Bibo Mao 1 month, 1 week ago

On 2025/11/6 下午4:50, Tianyang Zhang wrote:
> 
> 在 2025/11/6 上午10:10, Bibo Mao 写道:
>>
>>
>> On 2025/11/6 上午9:55, Tianyang Zhang wrote:
>>> Hi ,Bibao
>>>
>>> 在 2025/11/5 上午9:18, Bibo Mao 写道:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2025/11/5 上午9:07, Huacai Chen wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 8:57 AM Tianyang Zhang 
>>>>> <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, Huacai
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 在 2025/11/4 下午4:00, Huacai Chen 写道:
>>>>>>> Hi, Tianyang,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The subject line can be:
>>>>>>> LoongArch: Let {pte,pmd}_modify() record the status of 
>>>>>>> _PAGE_DIRTY (If
>>>>>>> I'm right in the later comments).
>>>>>> Ok. I got it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 3:30 PM Tianyang Zhang 
>>>>>>> <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In the current pte_modify operation, _PAGE_DIRTY might be 
>>>>>>>> cleared. Since
>>>>>>>> the hardware-page-walk does not have a predefined _PAGE_MODIFIED 
>>>>>>>> flag,
>>>>>>>> this could lead to loss of valid data in certain scenarios.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The new modification involves checking whether the original PTE 
>>>>>>>> has the
>>>>>>>> _PAGE_DIRTY flag. If it exists, the _PAGE_MODIFIED bit is set, 
>>>>>>>> ensuring
>>>>>>>> that the pte_dirty interface can return accurate information.
>>>>>>> The description may be wrong here. Because pte_dirty() returns
>>>>>>> pte_val(pte) & (_PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_MODIFIED).
>>>>>>> If _PAGE_DIRTY isn't lost, pte_dirty() is always right, no matter
>>>>>>> whether there is or isn't _PAGE_MODIFIED.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the real reason is we need to set _PAGE_MODIFIED in
>>>>>>> pte/pmd_modify to record the status of _PAGE_DIRTY, so that we can
>>>>>>> recover _PAGE_DIRTY afterwards, such as in pte/pmd_mkwrite().
>>>>>> Ok, I will adjust the description
>>>>> After some thinking, your original description may be right. Without
>>>>> this patch the scenario maybe like this:
>>>>> The pte is dirty _PAGE_DIRTY but without _PAGE_MODIFIED, after
>>>>> pte_modify() we lose _PAGE_DIRTY, then pte_dirty() returns false. So
>>>>> we need _PAGE_MODIFIED to record _PAGE_DIRTY here.
>>>> In theory pte_modify() is to modify RWX attribute. I think that it 
>>>> is a tricky to remove _PAGE_DIRTY and add _PAGE_MODIFIED with HW PTW 
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> Also _PAGE_ACCESSED is lost with pte_modify() API, is there any 
>>>> influence with HW PTW system, or wait until possible problems coming 
>>>> out.
>>>
>>> static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>> {
>>>          return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>> }
>>> In my understand, During the  pte_modify process, it is essential to 
>>> ensure that specific bits are inherited from the original PTE rather 
>>> than simply replaced(as set_pte),
>>>
>>> this guarantees the coherent operation of the memory management system.
>>>
>>> Since _PAGE_CHG_MASK explicitly requires preserving pte_modified, and 
>> The problem is how _PAGE_CHG_MASK should be defined, do you check with 
>> other architectures?
> 
> Under mainstream architectures(like ARM64/X86 ), if the pte_modify 
> interface clears the hard-dirty flag, it will set the soft-dirty flag 
> through some mechanism.
> 
> Thus, at least from the perspective of PAGE_DIRTY logic, this approach 
> is right.
> 
>>> there is an inherent correlation between pte_dirty and pte_modified, 
>>> these attributes must be evaluated and handled accordingly.
>>>
>>> The pte_valid attribute, being a hardware property, is inherently the 
>>> target of modification in the pte_modify interface. Therefore, it is 
>>> reasonable not to preserve it.
>> On HW PTW system, _PAGE_PRESENT will control whether trigger page 
>> fault rather than pte_valid/_PAGE_ACCESSED. For simple, do you think 
>> the following code is ok or not ?
> 
> "On HW PTW system, _PAGE_PRESENT will control whether trigger page fault 
> rather than pte_valid/_PAGE_ACCESSED"
> 
> Yes, indeed, in many cases, PAGE_PRESENT is precisely the cleanup target 
> of pte_modify.
Ok, I have no any question more :) Just do it.

Regards
Bibo Mao
> 
>>
>>  static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>  {
>> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>> +       unsigned long mask = _PAGE_CHG_MASK;
>> +
>> +       if (cpu_has_ptw)
>> +               mask |= _PAGE_DIRTY | _PAGE_ACCESSED;
>> +       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & mask) |
>> +                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~mask));
>>  }
>>
> This modification is inappropriate.
> 
> Firstly, _PAGE_ACCESSED(bit 0, as _PAGE_PRESENT) and _PAGE_DIRTY bits 
> are inherently the targets of pte_modify operations. Some 
> sub-memory-system like numa_balance precisely rely on
> 
> clearing these bits to trigger hardware exceptions and complete 
> subsequent processes, this appears to be unrelated to hardware-ptw
> 
> And, under hardware-ptw scenarios, the WRITE=0 && DIRTY=1 condition 
> should never occur, therefore, we cannot preserve the DIRTY bit in advance.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Tianyang
> 
>> Regards
>> Bibo Mao
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Tianyang
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Bibo Mao
>>>>>
>>>>> But the description also needs to be updated.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Co-developed-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Liupu Wang <wangliupu@loongson.cn>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>    arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
>>>>>>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h 
>>>>>>>> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>> index bd128696e96d..106abfa5183b 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>> @@ -424,8 +424,13 @@ static inline unsigned long 
>>>>>>>> pte_accessible(struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>>>>    {
>>>>>>>> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>>>> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>>>>>>> +       unsigned long val = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>>>> +                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>>>>> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +       return __pte(val);
>>>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>>>> @@ -547,9 +552,13 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>>>>    {
>>>>>>>> -       pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>>>> +       unsigned long val = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>>>>                                   (pgprot_val(newprot) & 
>>>>>>>> ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>>>> -       return pmd;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>>>>> +               val |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +       return __pmd(val);
>>>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>> A minimal modification can be:
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>>> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>>> index 1f20e9280062..907ece0199e0 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>>>>> @@ -448,8 +448,13 @@ static inline unsigned long 
>>>>>>> pte_accessible(struct
>>>>>>> mm_struct *mm, pte_t a)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>>>    {
>>>>>>> -       return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>>> -                    (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>>>>>> +       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>>>> +               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +       return pte;
>>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +       pte_val(pte) = (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After this step, _PAGE_DIRTY may have already disappeared,
>>>>>> If no new variables are added, they can be modified in follow way:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    static inline pte_t pte_modify(pte_t pte, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>>    {
>>>>>> +       if (pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>>> +               pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>          return __pte((pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>>           (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK));
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    }
>>>>> OK, it makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huacai
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    extern void __update_tlb(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>>> @@ -583,7 +588,11 @@ static inline struct page *pmd_page(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_modify(pmd_t pmd, pgprot_t newprot)
>>>>>>>    {
>>>>>>>           pmd_val(pmd) = (pmd_val(pmd) & _HPAGE_CHG_MASK) |
>>>>>>> -                               (pgprot_val(newprot) & 
>>>>>>> ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>>> +                       (pgprot_val(newprot) & ~_HPAGE_CHG_MASK);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +       if (pmd_val(pmd) & _PAGE_DIRTY)
>>>>>>> +               pmd_val(pmd) |= _PAGE_MODIFIED;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>           return pmd;
>>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You needn't define a new variable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huacai
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    static inline pmd_t pmd_mkinvalid(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> 2.41.0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tianyang
>>>>>>
>