From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f200.google.com (mail-pf0-f200.google.com [209.85.192.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844CB6B0003 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 21:23:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f200.google.com with SMTP id e16-v6so5362625pfn.5 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 18:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id e4-v6sor3617549pfn.127.2018.06.07.18.23.28 for (Google Transport Security); Thu, 07 Jun 2018 18:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/ksm: ignore STABLE_FLAG of rmap_item->address in rmap_walk_ksm References: <20180503124415.3f9d38aa@p-imbrenda.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <1525403506-6750-1-git-send-email-hejianet@gmail.com> <20180509163101.02f23de1842a822c61fc68ff@linux-foundation.org> <2cd6b39b-1496-bbd5-9e31-5e3dcb31feda@arm.com> <6c417ab1-a808-72ea-9618-3d76ec203684@arm.com> <20180524133805.6e9bfd4bf48de065ce1d7611@linux-foundation.org> <20180607151344.a22a1e7182a2142e6d24e4de@linux-foundation.org> From: Jia He Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:23:20 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180607151344.a22a1e7182a2142e6d24e4de@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton , Suzuki K Poulose , Andrea Arcangeli , Minchan Kim , Claudio Imbrenda , Arvind Yadav , Mike Rapoport , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jia.he@hxt-semitech.com, Hugh Dickins Hi Andrew On 6/8/2018 6:13 AM, Andrew Morton Wrote: > On Thu, 24 May 2018 13:38:05 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: >>> >>> Jia, Andrew, >>> >>> What is the status of this patch ? >>> >> >> I have it scheduled for 4.18-rc1, with a cc:stable for backporting. >> >> I'd normally put such a fix into 4.17-rcX but I'd like to give Hugh >> time to review it and to generally give it a bit more time for review >> and test. >> >> Have you tested it yourself? > > I'll take your silence as a no. Sorry if you asked the previous question to me. I've tested by myself in arm64 server (QDF2400,46 cpus,96G mem) Without this patch, the WARN_ON is very easy for reproducing. After this patch, I have run the same benchmarch for a whole day without any WARN_ONs Hope it helpful. Cheers, Jia