linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] numa, mm: drop redundant check in do_huge_pmd_numa

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1351258992.16863.77.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:43:12 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] numa, mm: drop redundant check in
 do_huge_pmd_numa_page()

On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 16:41 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:08:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 15:54 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > We check if the pmd entry is the same as on pmd_trans_huge() in
> > > handle_mm_fault(). That's enough.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> > 
> > Ah indeed, Will mentioned something like this on IRC as well, I hadn't
> > gotten around to looking at it -- now have, thanks!
> > 
> > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > 
> > That said, where in handle_mm_fault() do we wait for a split to
> > complete? We have a pmd_trans_huge() && !pmd_trans_splitting(), so a
> > fault on a currently splitting pmd will fall through.
> > 
> > Is it the return from the fault on unlikely(pmd_trans_huge()) ?
> 
> Yes, this code will catch it:
> 
> 	/* if an huge pmd materialized from under us just retry later */
> 	if (unlikely(pmd_trans_huge(*pmd)))
> 		return 0;
> 
> If the pmd is under splitting it's still a pmd_trans_huge().

OK, so then we simply keep taking the same fault until the split is
complete? Wouldn't it be better to wait for it instead of spin on
faults?
--
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/