From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
stable@kernel.org,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
starlight@binnacle.cx, Eric B Munson <ebmunson@us.ibm.com>,
Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>,
wli@movementarian.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Ignore VM_LOCKED when determining if hugetlb-backed page tables can be shared or not
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 09:55:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090528085503.GB10334@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090527231803.GA30002@elte.hu>
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 01:18:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
>
> > On x86 and x86-64, it is possible that page tables are shared
> > beween shared mappings backed by hugetlbfs. As part of this,
> > page_table_shareable() checks a pair of vma->vm_flags and they
> > must match if they are to be shared. All VMA flags are taken into
> > account, including VM_LOCKED.
> >
> > The problem is that VM_LOCKED is cleared on fork(). When a process
> > with a shared memory segment forks() to exec() a helper, there
> > will be shared VMAs with different flags. The impact is that the
> > shared segment is sometimes considered shareable and other times
> > not, depending on what process is checking.
> >
> > What happens is that the segment page tables are being shared but
> > the count is inaccurate depending on the ordering of events. As
> > the page tables are freed with put_page(), bad pmd's are found
> > when some of the children exit. The hugepage counters also get
> > corrupted and the Total and Free count will no longer match even
> > when all the hugepage-backed regions are freed. This requires a
> > reboot of the machine to "fix".
> >
> > This patch addresses the problem by comparing all flags except
> > VM_LOCKED when deciding if pagetables should be shared or not for
> > hugetlbfs-backed mapping.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> > Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 6 +++++-
> > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> i suspect it would be best to do this due -mm, due to the (larger)
> mm/hugetlb.c cross section, right?
>
I'm happy with that approach. Almost all hugetlbfs-related patches have
gone through -mm to date AFAIK even when they have been arch specific
like this.
Thanks
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-28 8:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-27 11:12 [PATCH 0/2] Fixes for hugetlbfs-related problems on shared memory Mel Gorman
2009-05-27 11:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86: Ignore VM_LOCKED when determining if hugetlb-backed page tables can be shared or not Mel Gorman
2009-05-27 16:38 ` Eric B Munson
2009-05-27 23:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-28 8:55 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2009-05-27 11:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: Account for MAP_SHARED mappings using VM_MAYSHARE and not VM_SHARED in hugetlbfs Mel Gorman
2009-05-27 16:40 ` Eric B Munson
2009-05-27 20:14 ` [PATCH 0/2] Fixes for hugetlbfs-related problems on shared memory Andrew Morton
2009-05-27 23:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-16 0:19 ` QUESTION: can netdev_alloc_skb() errors be reduced by tuning? starlight
2009-06-16 2:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-06-16 4:12 ` starlight
2009-06-16 6:12 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-07-05 3:44 ` Herbert Xu
2009-06-16 9:19 ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-16 15:25 ` starlight
2009-05-28 8:56 ` [PATCH 0/2] Fixes for hugetlbfs-related problems on shared memory Mel Gorman
2009-06-08 1:25 ` starlight
2009-06-08 10:24 ` Mel Gorman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090528085503.GB10334@csn.ul.ie \
--to=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=agl@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apw@canonical.com \
--cc=ebmunson@us.ibm.com \
--cc=hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--cc=starlight@binnacle.cx \
--cc=wli@movementarian.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox