On Fri 19-07-13 09:13:03, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:12:24PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > index 83aff0a..2cb1be3 100644
> > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > @@ -3266,8 +3266,8 @@ pte_t *huge_pmd_share(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pud_t *pud)
> > put_page(virt_to_page(spte));
> > spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> > out:
> > - pte = (pte_t *)pmd_alloc(mm, pud, addr);
> > mutex_unlock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> > + pte = (pte_t *)pmd_alloc(mm, pud, addr);
> > return pte;
>
> I am blind on hugetlb but not sure it doesn't break eb48c071.
> Michal?
Well, it is some time since I debugged the race and all the details
vanished in the meantime. But this part of the changelog suggests that
this indeed breaks the fix:
"
This patch addresses the issue by moving pmd_alloc into huge_pmd_share
which guarantees that the shared pud is populated in the same critical
section as pmd. This also means that huge_pte_offset test in
huge_pmd_share is serialized correctly now which in turn means that the
success of the sharing will be higher as the racing tasks see the pud
and pmd populated together.
"
Besides that I fail to see how moving pmd_alloc down changes anything.
Even if pmd_alloc triggered reclaim then we cannot trip over the same
i_mmap_mutex as hugetlb pages are not reclaimable because they are not
on the LRU.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>