linux-kernel - Re: [GIT TREE] Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3

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]

Date:	Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:03:30 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT TREE] Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:

> > If you had read that report, you would know that I didn't 
> > have results for specjbb with THP enabled due to the JVM 
> > crashing with null pointer exceptions.
> 
> Hm, it's the unified tree where most of the mm/ bits are the 
> AutoNUMA bits from your tree. (It does not match 100%, because 
> your tree has an ancient version of key memory usage 
> statistics that the scheduler needs for its convergence model. 
> I'll take a look at the differences.)

Beyond the difference in page frame statistics and the 
difference in the handling of "4K-EMU", the bits below are the 
difference I found (on the THP side) between numa/base-v3 and 
your -v10 tree - but I'm not sure it should have effect on your 
JVM segfault under THP ...

I tried with preemption on/off, debugging on/off, tried your 
.config - none triggers JVM segfaults with 4x JVM or 1x JVM 
SPECjbb tests.

Thanks,

	Ingo

------------------------->
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index c25e37c..409b2f3 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -711,8 +711,7 @@ out:
 	 * run pte_offset_map on the pmd, if an huge pmd could
 	 * materialize from under us from a different thread.
 	 */
-	if (unlikely(pmd_none(*pmd)) &&
-	    unlikely(__pte_alloc(mm, vma, pmd, address)))
+	if (unlikely(__pte_alloc(mm, vma, pmd, address)))
 		return VM_FAULT_OOM;
 	/* if an huge pmd materialized from under us just retry later */
 	if (unlikely(pmd_trans_huge(*pmd)))
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 8022526..30e1335 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -3845,8 +3750,7 @@ retry:
 	 * run pte_offset_map on the pmd, if an huge pmd could
 	 * materialize from under us from a different thread.
 	 */
-	if (unlikely(pmd_none(*pmd)) &&
-	    unlikely(__pte_alloc(mm, vma, pmd, address)))
+	if (unlikely(pmd_none(*pmd)) && __pte_alloc(mm, vma, pmd, address))
 		return VM_FAULT_OOM;
 	/* if an huge pmd materialized from under us just retry later */
 	if (unlikely(pmd_trans_huge(*pmd)))

--
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/