On Fri 24-08-18 11:08:24, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 08/24/2018 01:41 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 23-08-18 13:59:16, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >
> > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> >
> > One nit below.
> >
> > [...]
> >> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> >> index 3103099f64fd..a73c5728e961 100644
> >> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> >> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> >> @@ -4548,6 +4548,9 @@ static unsigned long page_table_shareable(struct vm_area_struct *svma,
> >> return saddr;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +#define _range_in_vma(vma, start, end) \
> >> + ((vma)->vm_start <= (start) && (end) <= (vma)->vm_end)
> >> +
> >
> > static inline please. Macros and potential side effects on given
> > arguments are just not worth the risk. I also think this is something
> > for more general use. We have that pattern at many places. So I would
> > stick that to linux/mm.h
>
> Thanks Michal,
>
> Here is an updated patch which does as you suggest above.
[...]
> @@ -1409,6 +1419,32 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> subpage = page - page_to_pfn(page) + pte_pfn(*pvmw.pte);
> address = pvmw.address;
>
> + if (PageHuge(page)) {
> + if (huge_pmd_unshare(mm, &address, pvmw.pte)) {
> + /*
> + * huge_pmd_unshare unmapped an entire PMD
> + * page. There is no way of knowing exactly
> + * which PMDs may be cached for this mm, so
> + * we must flush them all. start/end were
> + * already adjusted above to cover this range.
> + */
> + flush_cache_range(vma, start, end);
> + flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end);
> + mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(mm, start, end);
> +
> + /*
> + * The ref count of the PMD page was dropped
> + * which is part of the way map counting
> + * is done for shared PMDs. Return 'true'
> + * here. When there is no other sharing,
> + * huge_pmd_unshare returns false and we will
> + * unmap the actual page and drop map count
> + * to zero.
> + */
> + page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw);
> + break;
> + }
This still calls into notifier while holding the ptl lock. Either I am
missing something or the invalidation is broken in this loop (not also
for other invalidations).
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
