Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Define _PAGE_NUMA with unused physical address bits PMD and PTE levels

[Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 04:49:35PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 04:32:39PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> > On 07/04/14 16:10, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > _PAGE_NUMA is currently an alias of _PROT_PROTNONE to trap NUMA hinting
> > > faults. As the bit is shared care is taken that _PAGE_NUMA is only used in
> > > places where _PAGE_PROTNONE could not reach but this still causes problems
> > > on Xen and conceptually difficult.
> > 
> > The problem with Xen guests occurred because mprotect() /was/ confusing
> > PROTNONE mappings with _PAGE_NUMA and clearing the non-existant NUMA hints.
> 
> I didn't bother spelling it out in case I gave the impression that I was
> blaming Xen for the problem.  As the bit is now changes, does it help
> the Xen problem or cause another collision of some sort? There is no
> guarantee _PAGE_NUMA will remain as bit 62 but at worst it'll use bit 11
> and NUMA_BALANCING will depend in !KMEMCHECK.

Fwiw, we're using bit 11 for soft-dirty tracking, so i really hope worst case
never happen. (At the moment I'm trying to figure out if with this set
it would be possible to clean up ugly macros in pgoff_to_pte for 2 level pages).

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>