[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120926205617.GA2667@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:56:17 -0400
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: do not use vma_hugecache_offset for
vma_prio_tree_foreach
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:55:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 0c176d5 (mm: hugetlb: fix pgoff computation when unmapping page
> from vma) fixed pgoff calculation but it has replaced it by
> vma_hugecache_offset which is not approapriate for offsets used for
> vma_prio_tree_foreach because that one expects index in page units
> rather than in huge_page_shift.
> Using vma_hugecache_offset is not incorrect because the pgoff will fit
> into the same vmas but it is confusing so the standard PAGE_SHIFT based
> index calculation is used instead.
I do think it's incorrect. The resulting index may not be too big,
but it can be too small: assume hpage size of 2M and the address to
unmap to be 0x200000. This is regular page index 512 and hpage index
1. If you have a VMA that maps the file only starting at the second
huge page, that VMAs vm_pgoff will be 512 but you ask for offset 1 and
miss it even though it does map the page of interest. hugetlb_cow()
will try to unmap, miss the vma, and retry the cow until the
allocation succeeds or the skipped vma(s) go away.
Unless I missed something, this should not be deferred as a cleanup.
--
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