lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -alternative] mm: hugetlbfs: Close race during teardown of hugetlbfs shared page tables V2 (resend)
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:23:58PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 06:08:05PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
> > > So, after a bout of anxiety, I think my &= ~VM_MAYSHARE remains good.
> > >
> >
> > I agree with you. When I was thinking about the potential problems, I was
> > thinking of them in the general context of the core VM and what we normally
> > take into account.
> >
> > I confess that I really find this working-by-coincidence very icky and am
> > uncomfortable with it but your patch is the only patch that contains the
> > mess to hugetlbfs. I fixed exit_mmap() for my version but only by changing
> > the core to introduce exit_vmas() to take mmap_sem for write if a hugetlb
> > VMA is found so I also affected the core.
>
> "icky" is not quite the word I'd use, but yes, it feels like you only
> have to dislodge a stone somewhere at the other end of the kernel,
> and the whole lot would come tumbling down.
>
> If I could think of a suitable VM_BUG_ON to insert next to the ~VM_MAYSHARE,
> I would: to warn us when assumptions change. If we were prepared to waste
> another vm_flag on it (and just because there's now a type which lets them
> expand does not mean we can be profligate with them), then you can imagine
> a VM_GOINGAWAY flag set in unmap_region() and exit_mmap(), and we key off
> that instead; or something of that kind.
>

A new VM flag would be overkill for this right now.

> But I'm afraid I see that as TODO-list material: the one-liner is pretty
> good for stable backporting, and I felt smiled-upon when it turned out to
> be workable (and not even needing a change in arch/x86/mm, that really
> surprised me). It seems ungrateful not to seize the simple fix it offers,
> which I found much easier to understand than the alternatives.
>

That's fair enough.

> >
> > So, lets go with your patch but with all this documented! I stuck a
> > changelog and an additional comment onto your patch and this is the end
> > result.
>
> Okay, thanks. (I think you've copied rather more of my previous mail
> into the commit description than it deserves, but it looks like you
> like more words where I like less!)
>

I did copy more than was necessary, I'll fix it.

> >
> > Do you want to pick this up and send it to Andrew or will I?
>
> Oh, please change your Reviewed-by to Signed-off-by: almost all of the
> work and description comes from you and Michal; then please, you send it
> in to Andrew - sorry, I really need to turn my attention to other things.
>

That's fine, I'll pick it. Thanks for working on this.

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-25 11:21    [W:0.176 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site