From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9BIONDJ016847 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:24:23 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j9BIOMgA065120 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:24:22 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9BIOM5u012240 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:24:22 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Demand faulting for hugetlb From: Adam Litke Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:24:17 -0500 Message-Id: <1129055057.22182.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: akpm@osdl.org Cc: "ADAM G. LITKE [imap]" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, David Gibson , ak@suse.de, hugh@veritas.com List-ID: Ok, here's the next iteration of these patches. I think I've handled the truncate() case by comparing the hugetlbfs inode's i_size with the mapping offset of the requested page to make sure it hasn't been truncated. Can anyone confirm or deny that I have the locking correct for this? The other patches are still unchanged. Andrew: Did Andi Kleen's explanation of huge_pages_needed() satisfy? -- Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com) IBM Linux Technology Center -- 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