[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: oops in copy_page_rep()
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov <> wrote:
>> Heh. I was more thinking about why do_huge_pmd_wp_page() needs it, but
>> do_huge_pmd_numa_page() does not.
> It does. The check should be moved up.
>> Also, do we actually need it for huge_pmd_set_accessed()? The
>> *placement* of that thing confuses me. And because it confuses me, I'd
>> like to understand it.
> We need it for huge_pmd_set_accessed() too.
> Looks like a mis-merge. The original patch for huge_pmd_set_accessed() was
> correct:

Not a merge error: the pmd_trans_splitting() check was removed by
commit d10e63f29488 ("mm: numa: Create basic numa page hinting

Now, *why* it was removed, I can't tell. And it's not clear why the
original code just had it in a conditional, while the suggested patch
has that "goto repeat" thing. I suspect re-trying the fault (which I
assume the original code did) is actually better, because that way you
go through all the "should I reschedule as I return through the
exception" stuff. I dunno.

Mel, that original patch came from you , although it was based on
previous work by Peter/Ingo/Andrea. Can you walk us through the
history and thinking about the loss of pmd_trans_splitting(). Was it
purely a mistake? It looks intentional.


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-08 19:01    [W:0.074 / U:2.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site