[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yu1eCsMqa641zj5C@xz-m1.local>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:14:34 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] mm/hugetlb: fix hugetlb not supporting
write-notify
On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 01:03:28PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> index 61e6135c54ef..462a6b0344ac 100644
> --- a/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -1683,6 +1683,13 @@ int vma_wants_writenotify(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pgprot_t vm_page_prot)
> if ((vm_flags & (VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED)) != ((VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED)))
> return 0;
>
> + /*
> + * Hugetlb does not require/support writenotify; especially, it does not
> + * support softdirty tracking.
> + */
> + if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma))
> + return 0;
I'm kind of confused here.. you seems to be fixing up soft-dirty for
hugetlb but here it's explicitly forbidden.
Could you explain a bit more on why this patch is needed if (assume
there'll be a working) patch 2 being provided?
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists