[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA_GA1d1uKtqAxhgzx-pwkymvndmJb4PpMLQZHcetvgf16vBeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:28:20 +0800
From: Bob Liu <lliubbo@...il.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thp: close race between split and zap huge pages
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 07:52:29AM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
>> > *ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pmd);
>> > - if (pmd_none(*pmd))
>> > + if (!pmd_present(*pmd))
>> > goto unlock;
>>
>> But I didn't get the idea why pmd_none() was removed?
>
> !pmd_present(*pmd) is weaker check then pmd_none(*pmd). I mean if
> pmd_none(*pmd) is true then pmd_present(*pmd) is always false.
Oh, yes. That's right.
BTW, it looks like this bug was introduced by the same reason.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/16/403
--
Regards,
--Bob
--
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