linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] mm,numa,mprotect: always continue after finding a stable thp page

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <531F4128.8020109@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:00:24 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
CC:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, hhuang@...hat.com,
	knoel@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] mm,numa,mprotect: always continue after finding a
 stable thp page

On 03/11/2014 12:51 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 03/11/2014 12:28 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 06:27:45PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>> This is a completely untested prototype. It rechecks pmd_trans_huge
>>>> under the lock and falls through if it hit a parallel split. It's not
>>>> perfect because it could decide to fall through just because there was
>>>> no prot_numa work to do but it's for illustration purposes. Secondly,
>>>> I noted that you are calling invalidate for every pmd range. Is that
>>>> not
>>>> a lot of invalidations? We could do the same by just tracking the
>>>> address
>>>> of the first invalidation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And there were other minor issues. This is still untested but Sasha,
>>> can you try it out please? I discussed this with Rik on IRC for a bit
>>> and
>>> reckon this should be sufficient if the correct race has been
>>> identified.
>>>
>>
>> Any luck with this patch Sasha? It passed basic tests here but I had not
>> seen the issue trigger either.
>>
>
> Sorry, I've been stuck in my weekend project of getting lockdep to work
> with page locks :)
>
> It takes a moment to test, so just to be sure - I should have only this
> last patch applied?
> Without the one in the original mail?

Indeed, only this patch should do it.

--
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/