Re: RFC: Cleanup / small fixes to hugetlb fault handling
From: 'David Gibson'
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 19:11:17 EST
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 11:44:52AM -0700, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> David Gibson wrote on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 7:49 PM
> > +int hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > + unsigned long address, int write_access)
> > +{
> > + pte_t *ptep;
> > + pte_t entry;
> > +
> > + ptep = huge_pte_alloc(mm, address);
> > + if (! ptep)
> > + /* OOM */
> > + return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> > +
> > + entry = *ptep;
> > +
> > + if (pte_none(entry))
> > + return hugetlb_no_page(mm, vma, address, ptep);
> > +
> > + /* we could get here if another thread instantiated the pte
> > + * before the test above */
> > +
> > + return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> > }
>
> Are you sure about the last return? Looks like a typo to me, if *ptep
> is present, it should return VM_FAULT_MINOR.
Oops, yes, thinko. Corrected patch shortly.
> But the bigger question is: don't you need some lock when checking *ptep?
No, I'm pretty sure that's ok. In a sense, the test here is only an
optimization: we recheck the pte with lock held in hugetlb_no_page()
before attempting the set_pte_at().
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
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/