Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm/hmm: properly handle migration pmd

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue 28-08-18 17:42:06, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 28-08-18 11:36:59, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:24:14PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 24-08-18 20:05:46, Zi Yan wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > +	if (!pmd_present(pmd)) {
> > > > > +		swp_entry_t entry = pmd_to_swp_entry(pmd);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		if (is_migration_entry(entry)) {
> > > > 
> > > > I think you should check thp_migration_supported() here, since PMD migration is only enabled in x86_64 systems.
> > > > Other architectures should treat PMD migration entries as bad.
> > > 
> > > How can we have a migration pmd entry when the migration is not
> > > supported?
> > 
> > Not sure i follow here, migration can happen anywhere (assuming
> > that something like compaction is active or numa or ...). So this
> > code can face pmd migration entry on architecture that support
> > it. What is missing here is thp_migration_supported() call to
> > protect the is_migration_entry() to avoid false positive on arch
> > which do not support thp migration.
> 
> I mean that architectures which do not support THP migration shouldn't
> ever see any migration entry. So is_migration_entry should be always
> false. Or do I miss something?

And just to be clear. thp_migration_supported should be checked only
when we actually _do_ the migration or evaluate migratability of the
page. We definitely do want to sprinkle this check to all places where
is_migration_entry is checked.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux