[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <515F352D.8020405@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:33:49 -0400
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
CC: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kosaki.motohiro@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] migrate: add migrate_entry_wait_huge()
> diff --git v3.9-rc3.orig/mm/hugetlb.c v3.9-rc3/mm/hugetlb.c
> index 0a0be33..98a478e 100644
> --- v3.9-rc3.orig/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ v3.9-rc3/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -2819,7 +2819,7 @@ int hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> if (ptep) {
> entry = huge_ptep_get(ptep);
> if (unlikely(is_hugetlb_entry_migration(entry))) {
> - migration_entry_wait(mm, (pmd_t *)ptep, address);
> + migration_entry_wait_huge(mm, (pmd_t *)ptep, address);
Hm.
How do you test this? From x86 point of view, this patch seems unnecessary because
hugetlb_fault call "address &= hugetlb_mask()" at first and then migration_entry_wait()
could grab right pte lock. And from !x86 point of view, this funciton still doesn't work
because huge page != pmd on some arch.
I might be missing something though.
--
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