lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/10] mm/mremap: share the i_mmap_rwsem
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 10:04:24PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I'm glad to see this series back, and nicely presented: thank you.
> Not worth respinning them, but consider 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 9 as
> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
>
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> > As per the comment in move_ptes(), we only require taking the
> > anon vma and i_mmap locks to ensure that rmap will always observe
> > either the old or new ptes, in the case of need_rmap_lock=true.
> > No modifications to the tree itself, thus share the i_mmap_rwsem.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
> > Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@intel.linux.com>
>
> But this one is Nacked by me. I don't understand how you and Kirill
> could read Michel's painstaking comment on need_rmap_locks, then go
> go ahead and remove the exclusion of rmap_walk().
>
> I agree the code here does not modify the interval tree, but the
> comment explains how we're moving a pte from one place in the tree
> to another, and in some cases there's a danger that the rmap walk
> might miss the pte from both places (which doesn't matter much to
> most of its uses, but is critical in page migration).
>
> Or am I the one missing something?

You're completely right.

I've seen the comment (and I've added the missed need_rmap_locks case for
move_huge_pmd() before). What happened is I've over-extrapolated my
experience of rmap walk in case of split_huge_page(), which takes exclusive
anon_vma lock, to the rest of rmap use-cases. This of course was hugely
wrong.

I'm ashamed and feel really bad about the situation. Sorry.

--
Kirill A. Shutemov


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-04 14:01    [W:0.155 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site