Re: hugetlb demand paging patch part [3/3]

['David Gibson']

On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 10:16:45AM -0700, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> >>>>> David Gibson wrote on Thursday, April 15, 2004 12:26 AM
> >
> > > @@ -175,7 +132,6 @@ struct page *follow_huge_addr(struct mm_
> > >  		return NULL;
> > >  	page = pte_page(*ptep);
> > >  	page += ((addr & ~HPAGE_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > > -	get_page(page);
> > >  	return page;
> > >  }
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the removal of these get_page()s is also
> > unrelated to the demand paging per se.  But afaict removing them is
> > correct - the corresponding logic in follow_page() for normal pages
> > doesn't appear to do a get_page(), nor do all archs do a get_page().
> >
> > Does that sound right to you?
> 
> It's a bug in the code that was never exercised with prefaulting.  See
> get_user_pages() that short circuits the rest of faulting code with
> is_vm_hugetlb_page() test.

Erm.. it's not clear to me that it could never be exercise:
get_user_pages() is not the only caller of follow_page().

> > If so, the patch below ought to be safe (and indeed a bugfix) to
> > apply now:
> 
> Yep, that's correct, I already did x86 and ia64 in one of the three
> patches posted. ;-)

Yes, I know, but I'm trying to separate which parts of your patches
are fixes/cleanups for pre-existing problems, and which are genuinely
new for demand paging.

-- 
David Gibson			| For every complex problem there is a
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| solution which is simple, neat and
				| wrong.
http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/