From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753878Ab3AKODZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:03:25 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9465 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753707Ab3AKODX (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:03:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:01:36 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Simon Jeons Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Linus Torvalds , Hillf Danton , Hugh Dickins , Dave Jones , Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Linux-MM , Rik van Riel Subject: Re: oops in copy_page_rep() Message-ID: <20130111140136.GA11705@redhat.com> References: <20130108163141.GA27555@shutemov.name> <20130108173058.GA27727@shutemov.name> <20130108174951.GG9163@redhat.com> <1357890644.1466.1.camel@kernel.cn.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1357890644.1466.1.camel@kernel.cn.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 01:50:44AM -0600, Simon Jeons wrote: > On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 18:49 +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". > > > > 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. > > > > Those bits are only checked here at the last stage of > > split_huge_page_map after taking the PT lock: > > > > spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock); > > pmd = page_check_address_pmd(page, mm, address, > > PAGE_CHECK_ADDRESS_PMD_SPLITTING_FLAG); > > if (pmd) { > > pgtable = pgtable_trans_huge_withdraw(mm); > > pmd_populate(mm, &_pmd, pgtable); > > > > haddr = address; > > for (i = 0; i < HPAGE_PMD_NR; i++, haddr += PAGE_SIZE) { > > pte_t *pte, entry; > > BUG_ON(PageCompound(page+i)); > > entry = mk_pte(page + i, vma->vm_page_prot); > > entry = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(entry), vma); > > if (!pmd_write(*pmd)) > > entry = pte_wrprotect(entry); > > else > > BUG_ON(page_mapcount(page) != 1); > > if (!pmd_young(*pmd)) > > entry = pte_mkold(entry); > > if (pmd_numa(*pmd)) > > entry = pte_mknuma(entry); > > pte = pte_offset_map(&_pmd, haddr); > > BUG_ON(!pte_none(*pte)); > > set_pte_at(mm, haddr, pte, entry); > > pte_unmap(pte); > > } > > > > If "young" or "numa" bitflags changed on the original *pmd for the > > previous part of split_huge_page, nothing will go wrong by the time we > > get to split_huge_page_map (the same is not true if the pfn changes!). > > > > But this time BUG_ON(mapcount != mapcount2) in function > __split_huge_page will be trigged. "young" or "numa" bitflags in the pmd don't alter rmap/mapcount/pagecount/pfn or anything that could affect such BUG_ON, so I'm not sure why you think so.