[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OF79A40956.94F46B9C-ON48257B50.00320F73-48257B50.0036925D@zte.com.cn>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:55:29 +0800
From: zhang.yi20@....com.cn
To: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] futex: bugfix for futex-key conflict when futex use
hugepage
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com> wrote on 2013/04/17 01:57:10:
> Again, a functional testcase in futextest would be a good idea. This
> helps validate the patch and also can be used to identify regressions in
> the future.
I will post the testcase code later.
>
> What is the max value of comp_idx? Are we at risk of truncating it?
> Looks like not really from my initial look.
>
> This also needs a comment in futex.h describing the usage of the offset
> field in union futex_key as well as above get_futex_key describing the
> key for shared mappings.
>
>
As far as I know , the max size of one hugepage is 1 GBytes for x86 cpu.
Can some other cpus support greater hugepage even more than 4 GBytes? If
so, we can change the type of 'offset' from int to long to avoid
truncating.
--
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