From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx167.postini.com [74.125.245.167]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BC65B6B005A for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 13:01:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 20:03:02 +0200 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: oops in copy_page_rep() Message-ID: <20130108180302.GA27871@shutemov.name> References: <20130108163141.GA27555@shutemov.name> <20130108173058.GA27727@shutemov.name> <20130108174951.GG9163@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130108174951.GG9163@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Linus Torvalds , Hillf Danton , Hugh Dickins , Dave Jones , Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Linux-MM , Rik van Riel On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 06:49:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > Hi Kirill, > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:30:58PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > Merged patch is obviously broken: huge_pmd_set_accessed() can be called > > only if the pmd is under splitting. > > Of course I assume you meant "only if the pmd is not under splitting". The broken merged patch has this: + if (dirty && !pmd_write(orig_pmd) && !pmd_trans_splitting(orig_pmd)) { [...] + } else { + huge_pmd_set_accessed(mm, vma, address, pmd, + orig_pmd, dirty); } > But no, setting a bitflag like the young bit or clearing or setting > the numa bit won't screw with split_huge_page and it's safe even if > the pmd is under splitting. Okay. Thanks for clarification for me. -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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: email@kvack.org