[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1212192011320.25992@eggly.anvils>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:52:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page: no page_count check?
Mel, Ingo,
I want to raise again a question I raised (in offline mail with Mel)
a couple of weeks ago.
I see only a page_mapcount check in migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page,
and don't understand how migration can be safe against the possibility
of an earlier call to get_user_pages or get_user_pages_fast (intended
to pin a part of the THP) without a page_count check.
(I'm also still somewhat worried about unidentified attempts to
pin the page concurrently; but since I don't have an example to give,
and concurrent get_user_pages or get_user_pages_fast wouldn't get past
the pmd_numa, let's not worry too much about my unidentified anxiety ;)
migrate_page_move_mapping and migrate_huge_page_move_mapping check
page_count, but migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page doesn't use those.
__collapse_huge_page_isolate and khugepaged_scan_pmd (over in
huge_memory.c) take commented care to check page_count lest GUP.
I can see that page_count might often be raised by concurrent faults
on the same pmd_numa, waiting on the lock_page in do_huge_pmd_numa_page.
That's unfortunate, and maybe you can find a clever way to discount
those. But safety must come first: don't we need to check page_count?
Hugh
--
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