On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:09 AM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 5/31/21 7:48 PM, Mina Almasry wrote: > > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 5:36 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 May 2021 17:11:52 -0700 Mina Almasry <almasrymina@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 4:25 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 27 May 2021 17:50:29 -0700 Mina Almasry <almasrymina@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> I've sent 2 similar patches to the list: > >>> > >>> 1. "[PATCH v4] mm, hugetlb: Fix simple resv_huge_pages underflow on UFFDIO_COPY" > >>> > >>> This one is sent to -stable and linux-mm and is a fairly simple fix. > >>> > >>> 2. "[PATCH v4] mm, hugetlb: fix racy resv_huge_pages underflow on UFFDIO_COPY" > >> > >> Ah, OK, the title of the first patch was changed, which threw me off. > >> > >> I'd skipped "[PATCH v4] mm, hugetlb: Fix simple resv_huge_pages > >> underflow on UFFDIO_COPY" because Mike's comments appeared to require a > >> v5. I applied it and made Mike's changelog suggestions. Queued for > >> 5.13 and -stable. > >> > >> And I queued "[PATCH v4] mm, hugetlb: fix racy resv_huge_pages > >> underflow on UFFDIO_COPY" for 5.14. > >> > >> > > > > Awesome, thanks! And sorry for the confusion! > > > > Mina, does this patch depend on changes to restore_reserve_on_error()? > Yes, this patch (and only this patch) depends on your changes for complete and correct functionality. I'm not sure what's the impact > I am still working on those changes. It may be a few days before I can > have something finalized. > > If this does depend on restore_reserve_on_error as I suspect, perhaps we > should send these together. I was thinking it's fine to have my fix in Andrew's tree a few days before yours, since the race is hard to reproduce and even if the race reproduces the userfaultfd tests still pass, so I don't see any disastrous consequences, but I'm happy to do whatever is appropriate here. > -- > Mike Kravetz
