[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100427223242.GG8860@random.random>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:32:42 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix migration races in rmap_walk() V2
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 05:27:36PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Can we simply wait like in the fault path?
There is no bug there, no need to wait either. I already audited it
before, and I didn't see any bug. Unless you can show a bug with CPU A
running the rmap_walk on process1 before process2, there is no bug to
fix there.
>
> > Patch 3 notes that while a VMA is moved under the anon_vma lock, the page
> > tables are not similarly protected. Where migration PTEs are
> > encountered, they are cleaned up.
>
> This means they are copied / moved etc and "cleaned" up in a state when
> the page was unlocked. Migration entries are not supposed to exist when
> a page is not locked.
patch 3 is real, and the first thought I had was to lock down the page
before running vma_adjust and unlock after move_page_tables. But these
are virtual addresses. Maybe there's a simpler way to keep migration
away while we run those two operations.
--
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