From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200601122006.k0CK6Sg17146@unix-os.sc.intel.com> From: "Chen, Kenneth W" Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] hugetlb: synchronize alloc with page cache insert Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:06:29 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <1137095339.17956.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: 'Adam Litke' Cc: William Lee Irwin III , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Adam Litke wrote on Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:49 AM > On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 11:07 -0800, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > Sorry, I don't think patch 1 by itself is functionally correct. It opens > > a can of worms with race window all over the place. It does more damage > > than what it is trying to solve. Here is one case: > > > > 1 thread fault on hugetlb page, allocate a non-zero page, insert into the > > page cache, then proceed to zero it. While in the middle of the zeroing, > > 2nd thread comes along fault on the same hugetlb page. It find it in the > > page cache, went ahead install a pte and return to the user. User code > > modify some parts of the hugetlb page while the 1st thread is still > > zeroing. A potential silent data corruption. > > I don't think the above case is possible because of find_lock_page(). > The second thread would wait on the page to be unlocked by the thread > zeroing it before it could proceed. I think you are correct. Sorry for the noise. - Ken -- 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