Hi Kirill,
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:30:58PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Merged patch is obviously broken: huge_pmd_set_accessed() can be called
> only if the pmd is under splitting.
Of course I assume you meant "only if the pmd is not under splitting".
But no, setting a bitflag like the young bit or clearing or setting
the numa bit won't screw with split_huge_page and it's safe even if
the pmd is under splitting.
Those bits are only checked here at the last stage of
split_huge_page_map after taking the PT lock:
spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
pmd = page_check_address_pmd(page, mm, address,
PAGE_CHECK_ADDRESS_PMD_SPLITTING_FLAG);
if (pmd) {
pgtable = pgtable_trans_huge_withdraw(mm);
pmd_populate(mm, &_pmd, pgtable);
haddr = address;
for (i = 0; i < HPAGE_PMD_NR; i++, haddr += PAGE_SIZE) {
pte_t *pte, entry;
BUG_ON(PageCompound(page+i));
entry = mk_pte(page + i, vma->vm_page_prot);
entry = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(entry), vma);
if (!pmd_write(*pmd))
entry = pte_wrprotect(entry);
else
BUG_ON(page_mapcount(page) != 1);
if (!pmd_young(*pmd))
entry = pte_mkold(entry);
if (pmd_numa(*pmd))
entry = pte_mknuma(entry);
pte = pte_offset_map(&_pmd, haddr);
BUG_ON(!pte_none(*pte));
set_pte_at(mm, haddr, pte, entry);
pte_unmap(pte);
}
If "young" or "numa" bitflags changed on the original *pmd for the
previous part of split_huge_page, nothing will go wrong by the time we
get to split_huge_page_map (the same is not true if the pfn changes!).
If you think this is too tricky, we could also decide to forbid
huge_pmd_set_accessed if the pmd is in splitting state, but I don't
think that flipping young/numa bits while in splitting state, can
cause any problem (if done correctly with PT lock + pmd_same).
Thanks!
--
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>