lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Correct alignment of huge page requests.
On 03/03/2012 10:02 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 09:58:41PM -0500, Steven Truelove wrote:
>> When calling shmget() with SHM_HUGETLB, shmget aligns the request size to PAGE_SIZE, but this is not sufficient. Modified hugetlb_file_setup() to align requests to the huge page size, and to accept an address argument so that all alignment checks can be performed in hugetlb_file_setup(), rather than in its callers. Changed newseg and mmap_pgoff to match new prototype and eliminated a now redundant alignment check.
> I think only rounding up request size in shmget() is not sufficient,
> because later shmat() also have alignment check and fails to mmap()
> to unaligned address.
> Maybe file->f_op->get_unmapped_area() (or hugetlb_get_unmapped_area())
> should have round up code, I think.
> Could you try it?

Because the allocation is done in shmget() and the the address is not
provided until shmat(), I don't see a way to make this work reasonably.
I would argue that only allowing aligned addresses, or allowing the
kernel to choose the address, is a reasonable restriction on SHM_HUGETLB
usage.

Regarding your other comments, I will submit a revised patch.

Thanks,

Steven Truelove


> And a few comments below,
>
>> Signed-off-by: Steven Truelove<steven.truelove@utoronto.ca>
>> ---
>> fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 12 ++++++++----
>> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 3 ++-
>> ipc/shm.c | 2 +-
>> mm/mmap.c | 6 +++---
>> 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>> index 1e85a7a..a97b7cc 100644
>> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>> @@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ static int can_do_hugetlb_shm(void)
>> return capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK) || in_group_p(sysctl_hugetlb_shm_group);
>> }
>>
>> -struct file *hugetlb_file_setup(const char *name, size_t size,
>> +struct file *hugetlb_file_setup(const char *name, unsigned long addr, size_t size,
> Just a nitpick, this line is over 80 characters.
> checkpatch.pl should warn.
>
>> vm_flags_t acctflag,
>> struct user_struct **user, int creat_flags)
>> {
>> @@ -938,6 +938,8 @@ struct file *hugetlb_file_setup(const char *name, size_t size,
>> struct path path;
>> struct dentry *root;
>> struct qstr quick_string;
>> + struct hstate *hstate;
>> + int num_pages;
> Is unsigned long better?
>
> Thanks,
> Naoya
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-08 00:33    [W:0.049 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site