[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyG26N3_KiA8_cxLW59xFMJBK8SKfG4qL80NMQ3tdh3Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 09:51:47 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: oops in copy_page_rep()
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> The reason it returned to userland and retried the fault is that this
> should be infrequent enough not to worry about it and this was
> marginally simpler but it could be changed.
Yeah, that was my suspicion. And as mentioned, returning to user land
might actually help with scheduling and/or signal handling latencies
etc, so it might be the right thing to do. Especially if the
alternative is to just busy-loop.
> If we don't want to return to userland we should wait on the splitting
> bit and then take the pte walking routines like if the pmd wasn't
> huge. This is not related to the below though.
How does this patch sound to people? It does the splitting check
before the access bit set (even though I don't think it matters), and
at least talks about the alternatives and the issues a bit.
Hmm?
Linus
Download attachment "mm.patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (750 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists