[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140407154935.GD7292@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 16:49:35 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Noonan <steven@...inklabs.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Linux-X86 <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Define _PAGE_NUMA with unused physical address
bits PMD and PTE levels
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 04:32:39PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 07/04/14 16:10, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > _PAGE_NUMA is currently an alias of _PROT_PROTNONE to trap NUMA hinting
> > faults. As the bit is shared care is taken that _PAGE_NUMA is only used in
> > places where _PAGE_PROTNONE could not reach but this still causes problems
> > on Xen and conceptually difficult.
>
> The problem with Xen guests occurred because mprotect() /was/ confusing
> PROTNONE mappings with _PAGE_NUMA and clearing the non-existant NUMA hints.
>
I didn't bother spelling it out in case I gave the impression that I was
blaming Xen for the problem. As the bit is now changes, does it help
the Xen problem or cause another collision of some sort? There is no
guarantee _PAGE_NUMA will remain as bit 62 but at worst it'll use bit 11
and NUMA_BALANCING will depend in !KMEMCHECK.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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