From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:18:41 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] radix priority search tree - objrmap complexity fix Message-ID: <20040326191841.GE9604@dualathlon.random> References: <20040325225919.GL20019@dualathlon.random> <20040326122636.GX791@holomorphy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040326122636.GX791@holomorphy.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: William Lee Irwin III , Rajesh Venkatasubramanian , akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org, hugh@veritas.com, mbligh@aracnet.com, riel@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 04:26:36AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:59:19PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > btw, the truncate of hugetlbfs didn't serialize correctly against the > > do_no_page page faults, that's fixed too. > > If a fault on hugetlb ever got as far as do_no_page() on ia32, the > kernel would oops on the bogus struct page it gets out of the bogus > pte. I believe the way faults are handled in out-of-tree patches if by > calling hugetlb-specific fault handling stacks instead of > handle_mm_fault() if hugetlb vmas are found by arch code. > this is certainly true, but still the pmd fault handling should have the same locking of do_no_page, the race sounds the same, no matter if it's a pmd or pte fill, no? -- 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: aart@kvack.org