On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It looks very fine to me, but I suggest to move it above the
> pmd_numa() check because of the newly introduced
> migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page method relying on pmd_same too.
Hmm. If we need it there, then we need to fix the *later* case of
pmd_numa() too:
if (pmd_numa(*pmd))
return do_pmd_numa_page(mm, vma, address, pmd);
Also, and more fundamentally, since do_pmd_numa_page() doesn't take
the orig_pmd thing as an argument (and re-check it under the
page-table lock), testing pmd_trans_splitting() on it is pointless,
since it can change later.
So no, moving the check up does *not* make sense, at least not without
other changes. Because if I read things right, pmd_trans_splitting()
really has to be done with the page-table lock protection (where "with
page-table lock protection" does *not* mean that it has to be done
under the page table lock, but if it is done outside, then the pmd
entry has to be re-verified after getting the lock - which both
do_huge_pmd_wp_page() and huge_pmd_set_accessed() correctly do).
Comments?
Linus
--
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>