[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53205014.2050602@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:16:20 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, hhuang@...hat.com,
knoel@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: numa: Recheck for transhuge pages under lock during
protection changes
On 03/12/2014 06:36 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Andrew, this should go with the patches
> mmnuma-reorganize-change_pmd_range.patch
> mmnuma-reorganize-change_pmd_range-fix.patch
> move-mmu-notifier-call-from-change_protection-to-change_pmd_range.patch
> in mmotm please.
>
> Thanks.
That would be nice indeed :)
I am still not entirely sure why the kernel did not hit this race
before my reorganize change_pmd_range patch. Maybe gcc used to do
one load and now it does two?
> The problem is that a transhuge check is made without holding the PTL. It's
> possible at the time of the check that a parallel fault clears the pmd
> and inserts a new one which then triggers the VM_BUG_ON check. This patch
> removes the VM_BUG_ON but fixes the race by rechecking transhuge under the
> PTL when marking page tables for NUMA hinting and bailing if a race occurred.
> It is not a problem for calls to mprotect() as they hold mmap_sem for write.
>
> Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
--
All rights reversed
--
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