[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 18:16:16 -0600
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Huang Shijie <shijie.huang@....com>
Cc: dwoods@...lanox.com, steve.capper@....com, will.deacon@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kaly.xin@....com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, nd@....com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: hugetlb: remove the wrong pmd check in
find_num_contig()
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:27:38AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> index 2e49bd2..4811ef1 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> @@ -61,10 +61,6 @@ static int find_num_contig(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> return 1;
> }
> pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
> - if (!pmd_present(*pmd)) {
> - VM_BUG_ON(!pmd_present(*pmd));
> - return 1;
> - }
> if ((pte_t *)pmd == ptep) {
> *pgsize = PMD_SIZE;
> return CONT_PMDS;
BTW, for the !pud_present() and !pgd_present() cases, shouldn't
find_num_contig() actually return 0? These are more likely real bugs, so
no point in setting the huge pte.
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists