Re: [PATCHv3 4/5] mm: make compound_head() robust

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

On 08/21/2015 09:34 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:31:09 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:11:27AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Is this really true?  For example if it's a slab page, will that page
>>>>> ever be inspected by code which is looking for the PageTail bit?
>>>>
>>>> +Christoph.
>>>>
>>>> What we know for sure is that space is not used in tail pages, otherwise
>>>> it would collide with current compound_dtor.
>>>
>>> Sl*b allocators only do a virt_to_head_page on tail pages.
>>
>> The question was whether it's safe to assume that the bit 0 is always zero
>> in the word as this bit will encode PageTail().
>
> That wasn't my question actually...
>
> What I'm wondering is: if this page is being used for slab, will any
> code path ever run PageTail() against it?  If not, we don't need to be
> concerned about that bit.

Pfn scanners such as compaction might inspect such pages and run 
compound_head() (and thus PageTail) on them. I think no kind of page 
within a zone (slab or otherwise) is "protected" from this, which is why 
it needs to be robust.

> And slab was just the example I chose.  The same question petains to
> all other uses of that union.
>

--
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>