On 05.08.22 20:23, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On 08/05/22 14:14, Peter Xu wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 01:03:28PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c >>> index 61e6135c54ef..462a6b0344ac 100644 >>> --- a/mm/mmap.c >>> +++ b/mm/mmap.c >>> @@ -1683,6 +1683,13 @@ int vma_wants_writenotify(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pgprot_t vm_page_prot) >>> if ((vm_flags & (VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED)) != ((VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED))) >>> return 0; >>> >>> + /* >>> + * Hugetlb does not require/support writenotify; especially, it does not >>> + * support softdirty tracking. >>> + */ >>> + if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)) >>> + return 0; >> >> I'm kind of confused here.. you seems to be fixing up soft-dirty for >> hugetlb but here it's explicitly forbidden. >> >> Could you explain a bit more on why this patch is needed if (assume >> there'll be a working) patch 2 being provided? >> > > No comments on the patch, but ... > > Since it required little thought, I ran the test program on next-20220802 and > was surprised that the issue did not recreate. Even added a simple printk > to make sure we were getting into vma_wants_writenotify with a hugetlb vma. > We were. ... does your config have CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY enabled? -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
