[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140227163405.GA909@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:34:05 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
rientjes@...gle.com, riel@...hat.com, mingo@...nel.org,
mgorman@...e.de, kirill shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
heiko carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, hannes@...xchg.org,
gerald schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, aarcange@...hat.com
Subject: Re: + mm-revert-thp-make-madv_hugepage-check-for-mm-def_flags.patch
added to -mm tree
On 02/26, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_S390
> > + /*
> > + * MADV_HUGEPAGE is broken after s390_enable_sie(), qemu
> > + * blindly does madvise(MADV_HUGEPAGE) for for all kvm pages
> > + * and expects it must fail on s390. Avoid a possible SIGSEGV
> > + * until qemu is changed.
> > + */
> > + if (mm_has_pgste(vma->vm_mm))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +#endif
>
> The comment is not quite true. QEMU doesn't expect that the madvise fails.
Yes, sorry. I didn't mean "it expects -EINVAL".
> It simply expects that the madvise doesn't cause SIGSEGVs or later
> malfunctioning, because (quoting tha man page) madvise "does not influence
> the semantics of the application".
Yes, I understand. But currently this means "MADV_HUGEPAGE should not
actually work", this is what I tried to say.
> There's nothing to fix in QEMU,
I was going to argue, but this is probably true too.
In short: I agree with any comment ;)
Oleg.
--
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