On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 03:12:54PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c > > index d767a7c..05490b3 100644 > > --- a/mm/huge_memory.c > > +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c > > @@ -1259,6 +1259,8 @@ int change_huge_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd, > > pmd_t entry; > > entry = pmdp_get_and_clear(mm, addr, pmd); > > entry = pmd_modify(entry, newprot); > > + if (is_huge_zero_pmd(entry)) > > + entry = pmd_wrprotect(entry); > > set_pmd_at(mm, addr, pmd, entry); > > spin_unlock(&vma->vm_mm->page_table_lock); > > ret = 1; > > Nack, this should be handled in pmd_modify(). I disagree. It means we will have to enable hzp per arch. Bad idea. What's wrong with the check? -- Kirill A. Shutemov
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature