[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 15:46:06 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
kirill@...temov.name
Subject: Re: [patch] futex: Fix v4.6+ ltp futex_wait04 regression
On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:34 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:07 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > @@ -654,12 +666,14 @@ get_futex_key(u32 __user *uaddr, int fsh
> > >
> > > > > > > > > key->both.offset |= FUT_OFF_INODE;
> > > /* inode-based key */
> > > > > > > > > key->shared.inode = inode;
> > > -> > > > > > key->shared.pgoff =
> > > basepage_index(page);
> > > +> > > > > > key->shared.pgoff =
> > > basepage_index(pinned);
> >
> > But this seems to be the actual fix;
>
> Yup, the three 'pinned' lines alone work just fine.
I was going by what the code used to look like.
#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
...
#else
page_head = compound_head(page);
if (page != page_head) {
get_page(page_head);
put_page(page);
}
#endif
That all went away, but the pinned page that we used in the end was
stable until Mel's optimization landed, leaving me thinking I needed to
do both. Hohum, close but no banana.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists