[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130108163141.GA27555@shutemov.name>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 18:31:41 +0200
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: oops in copy_page_rep()
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:37:06AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hmm. Is there some reason we never need to worry about it for the
> >> "pmd_numa()" case just above?
> >>
> >> A comment about this all might be a really good idea.
> >>
> > Yes Sir, added.
>
> Heh. I was more thinking about why do_huge_pmd_wp_page() needs it, but
> do_huge_pmd_numa_page() does not.
It does. The check should be moved up.
> Also, do we actually need it for huge_pmd_set_accessed()? The
> *placement* of that thing confuses me. And because it confuses me, I'd
> like to understand it.
We need it for huge_pmd_set_accessed() too.
Looks like a mis-merge. The original patch for huge_pmd_set_accessed() was
correct: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/25/402
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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