Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:58:00 -0400 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: numa: Do not mark PTEs pte_numa when splitting huge pages |
| |
On 10/02/2014 12:36 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote: >> > This patch reverts 1ba6e0b50b ("mm: numa: split_huge_page: transfer the >> > NUMA type from the pmd to the pte"). If a huge page is being split due >> > a protection change and the tail will be in a PROT_NONE vma then NUMA >> > hinting PTEs are temporarily created in the protected VMA. > So this is the particular bug I was worried about when tracing through the code. > > Should I just apply this as-is? And mark it for stable, since this has > been around since 3.8 or so. It would seem to be a very safe change to > do, regardless of whether this is actually the issue that Dave and > maybe Sasha are seeing. > > Sasha, I notice that you weren't on the cc for Mel's patches (probably > because you got added later to the other thread), but they were all > cc'd to lkml so you should see them there. Or I can forward them > separately.
I grabbed them and will keep them in my tree for now instead of your NUMA-chainsaw-massacre patch.
You've also mentioned that while I can tell you if nothing dies, I can't really tell you if everything is working well. Is there a reasonable way to easily say if NUMA is working properly? Even something that would just tell me "your NUMA balancing seems to be sane" would be good.
Thanks, Sasha
| |