On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 06:16:40PM +0100, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:57:27 +0100
> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > I'm also confused by pmd_none() is equal to !pmd_present() on s390. Hm?
> >
> > Don't know, Gerald or Martin?
>
> The implementation frequently changes depending on how many new bits Martin
> needs to squeeze out :-)
> We don't have a _PAGE_PRESENT bit for pmds, so pmd_present() just checks if the
> entry is not empty. pmd_none() of course does the opposite, it checks if it is
> empty.
I still worry about pmd_present(). It looks wrong to me. I wounder if
patch below makes a difference.
The theory is that the splitting bit effetely masked bogus pmd_present():
we had pmd_trans_splitting() in all code path and that prevented mm from
touching the pmd. Once pmd_trans_splitting() has gone, mm proceed with the
pmd where it shouldn't and here's a boom.
I'm not sure that the patch is correct wrt yound/old pmds and I have no
way to test it...
diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h
index 64ead8091248..2eeb17ab68ac 100644
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h
@@ -490,7 +490,7 @@ static inline int pud_bad(pud_t pud)
static inline int pmd_present(pmd_t pmd)
{
- return pmd_val(pmd) != _SEGMENT_ENTRY_INVALID;
+ return !(pmd_val(pmd) & _SEGMENT_ENTRY_INVALID);
}
static inline int pmd_none(pmd_t pmd)
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
