[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160216095428.GB46557@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 12:54:28 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...aro.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 04/28] mm: make remove_migration_ptes() beyond
mm/migration.c
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 08:54:58AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 02/11/2016 06:21 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote
> > We also shouldn't try to mlock() pte-mapped huge pages: pte-mapeed THP
> > pages are never mlocked.
>
> That's kinda subtle. Can you explain more?
>
> If we did the following:
>
> ptr = mmap(NULL, 512*PAGE_SIZE, ...);
> mlock(ptr, 512*PAGE_SIZE);
> fork();
> munmap(ptr + 100 * PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE);
>
> I'd expect to get two processes, each mapping the same compound THP, one
> with a PMD and the other with 511 ptes and one hole. Is there something
> different that goes on?
I'm not sure what exactly you want to ask with this code, but it will have
the following result:
- After fork() process will split the pmd in munlock(). For file thp
split pmd, means clear it out. Mapping split_huge_pmd() would munlock
the page as we do for anon thp;
- In child process the page is never mapped as mlock() is not inherited
and we don't copy page tables for shared VMA as they can re-faulted
later;
The basic semantic for mlock()ed file THP would be the same as for anon
THP: we only keep the page mlocked as long as it's mapped only with PMDs.
This way it's relatively simple to make sure that we don't leak mlocked
pages.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists