[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <569458AB.5000102@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:36:43 -0800
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlbfs: Unmap pages if page fault raced with hole
punch
On 01/11/2016 04:29 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:38:40 -0800 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/11/2016 02:35 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 14:37:04 -0800 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>> The (unmodified) routine hugetlb_vmdelete_list was moved ahead of
>>>> remove_inode_hugepages to satisfy the new reference.
>>>>
<snip>
>
> I'll mark this patch as "pending, awaiting Mike's go-ahead".
>
When this patch was originally submitted, bugs were discovered in the
hugetlb_vmdelete_list routine. So, the patch "Fix bugs in
hugetlb_vmtruncate_list" was created.
I have retested the changes in this patch specifically dealing with
page fault/hole punch race on top of the new hugetlb_vmtruncate_list
routine. Everything looks good.
How would you like to proceed with the patch?
- Should I create a series with the hugetlb_vmtruncate_list split out?
- Should I respin with hugetlb_vmtruncate_list patch applied?
Just let me know what is easiest/best for you.
--
Mike Kravetz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists