[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180409174753.4b959a5b3ff732b8f96f5a14@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 17:47:53 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Jerome Glisse" <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
Zi Yan <zi.yan@...rutgers.edu>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] mm, pagemap: Fix swap offset value for PMD
migration entry
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 11:37:37 +0800 "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
>
> The swap offset reported by /proc/<pid>/pagemap may be not correct for
> PMD migration entry. If addr passed into pagemap_range() isn't
pagemap_pmd_range(), yes?
> aligned with PMD start address,
How can this situation come about?
> the swap offset reported doesn't
> reflect this. And in the loop to report information of each sub-page,
> the swap offset isn't increased accordingly as that for PFN.
>
> BTW: migration swap entries have PFN information, do we need to
> restrict whether to show them?
For what reason? Address obfuscation?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists