Re: [PATCH 4/5] teach smaps_pte_range() about THP pmds

[Dave Hansen]

On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 19:08 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> the locking looks wrong, who is taking the &walk->mm->page_table_lock,
> and isn't this going to deadlock on the pte_offset_map_lock for
> NR_CPUS < 4, and where is it released? This spin_lock don't seem
> necessary to me.
> 
> The right locking would be:
> 
>  spin_lock(&walk->mm->page_table_lock);
>  if (pmd_trans_huge(*pmd)) {
>    if (pmd_trans_splitting(*pmd)) {
>     spin_unlock(&walk->mm->page_table_lock);
>     wait_split_huge_page(vma->anon_vma, pmd);
>    } else {
>     smaps_pte_entry(*(pte_t *)pmd, addr, HPAGE_SIZE, walk);
>     spin_unlock(&walk->mm->page_table_lock);
>     return 0;
>   } 

I was under the assumption that the mm->page_table_lock was already held
here, but I think that's wrong.  I'll go back, take another look, and
retest.

-- Dave

--
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/