[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12918dcd-a695-c6f4-e06f-69141c5f357f@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:05:19 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Ebru Akagunduz <ebru.akagunduz@...il.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, thp: fix locking inconsistency in collapse_huge_page
On 06/03/2016 02:28 PM, Ebru Akagunduz wrote:
> After creating revalidate vma function, locking inconsistency occured
> due to directing the code path to wrong label. This patch directs
> to correct label and fix the inconsistency.
>
> Related commit that caused inconsistency:
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=da4360877094368f6dfe75bbe804b0f0a5d575b0
>
> Signed-off-by: Ebru Akagunduz <ebru.akagunduz@...il.com>
I think this does fix the inconsistency, thanks.
But looking at collapse_huge_page() as of latest -next, I wonder if
there's another problem:
pmd = mm_find_pmd(mm, address);
...
up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
hugepage_vma_revalidate(mm, address);
...
pte = pte_offset_map(pmd, address);
What guarantees that 'pmd' is still valid?
Vlastimil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists