On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 08:52:14AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Heh. I was more thinking about why do_huge_pmd_wp_page() needs it, but > >> do_huge_pmd_numa_page() does not. > > > > It does. The check should be moved up. > > > >> Also, do we actually need it for huge_pmd_set_accessed()? The > >> *placement* of that thing confuses me. And because it confuses me, I'd > >> like to understand it. > > > > We need it for huge_pmd_set_accessed() too. > > > > Looks like a mis-merge. The original patch for huge_pmd_set_accessed() was > > correct: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/25/402 > > Not a merge error: the pmd_trans_splitting() check was removed by > commit d10e63f29488 ("mm: numa: Create basic numa page hinting > infrastructure"). Check difference between patch above and merged one -- a1dd450. Merged patch is obviously broken: huge_pmd_set_accessed() can be called only if the pmd is under splitting. -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>