[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1504091235500.11370@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 12:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: use pmd_page() in follow_huge_pmd()
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> commit 61f77eda "mm/hugetlb: reduce arch dependent code around follow_huge_*"
> broke follow_huge_pmd() on s390, where pmd and pte layout differ and using
> pte_page() on a huge pmd will return wrong results. Using pmd_page() instead
> fixes this.
>
> All architectures that were touched by commit 61f77eda have pmd_page()
> defined, so this should not break anything on other architectures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # v3.12
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
I'm not sure where the stable cc came from, though: commit 61f77eda makes
s390 use a generic version of follow_huge_pmd() and that generic version
is buggy for s930 because of commit e66f17ff7177 ("mm/hugetlb: take page
table lock in follow_huge_pmd()"). Both of those are 4.0 material,
though, so why is this needed for stable 3.12?
--
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