| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1205766307.10849.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:05:07 -0500 From: Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pj@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au Subject: Re: [PATCH] [0/18] GB pages hugetlb support On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 02:58 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: <snip> > - lockdep sometimes complains about recursive page_table_locks > for shared hugetlb memory, but as far as I can see I didn't > actually change this area. Looks a little dubious, might > be a false positive too. I bet copy_hugetlb_page_range() is causing your complaints. It takes the dest_mm->page_table_lock followed by src_mm->page_table_lock inside a loop and hasn't yet been converted to call spin_lock_nested(). A harmless false positive. > - hugemmap04 from LTP fails. Cause unknown currently I am not sure how well LTP is tracking mainline development in this area. How do these patches do with the libhugetlbfs test suite? We are adding support for ginormous pages (1GB, 16GB, etc) but it is not complete. Should run fine with 2M pages though. Before you ask, here is the link: http://libhugetlbfs.ozlabs.org/snapshots/libhugetlbfs-dev-20080310.tar.gz -- Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com) IBM Linux Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists