Hi Naoya,
On 03/21/2013 05:59 AM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 08:31:06AM +0800, Simon Jeons wrote:
> ...
>>>>> diff --git v3.8.orig/mm/mempolicy.c v3.8/mm/mempolicy.c
>>>>> index e2df1c1..8627135 100644
>>>>> --- v3.8.orig/mm/mempolicy.c
>>>>> +++ v3.8/mm/mempolicy.c
>>>>> @@ -525,6 +525,27 @@ static int check_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>>>>> return addr != end;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static void check_hugetlb_pmd_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>>>>> + const nodemask_t *nodes, unsigned long flags,
>>>>> + void *private)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE
>>>>> + int nid;
>>>>> + struct page *page;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + spin_lock(&vma->vm_mm->page_table_lock);
>>>>> + page = pte_page(huge_ptep_get((pte_t *)pmd));
>>>>> + spin_unlock(&vma->vm_mm->page_table_lock);
>>>> I am a bit confused why page_table_lock is used here and why it doesn't
>>>> cover the page usage.
>>> I expected this function to do the same for pmd as check_pte_range() does
>>> for pte, but the above code didn't do it. I should've put spin_unlock
>>> below migrate_hugepage_add(). Sorry for the confusion.
>> I still confuse! Could you explain more in details?
> With the above code, check_hugetlb_pmd_range() checks page_mapcount
> outside the page table lock, but mapcount can be decremented by
> __unmap_hugepage_range(), so there's a race.
> __unmap_hugepage_range() calls page_remove_rmap() inside page table lock,
> so we can avoid this race by doing whole check_hugetlb_pmd_range()'s work
> inside the page table lock.
Why you use page_table_lock instead of split ptlock to protect 2MB?
>
> Thanks,
> Naoya
--
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>