Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm,migration: During fork(), wait for migration toend if migration PTE is encountered

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 08:52:03AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> I already explained this doesn't happend and said "I'm sorry".

Oops I must have overlooked it sorry! I just seen the trace quoted in
the comment of the patch and that at least would need correction
before it can be pushed in mainline, or it creates huge confusion to
see a reverse trace for CPU A for an already tricky piece of code.

> But considering maintainance, it's not necessary to copy migration ptes
> and we don't have to keep a fundamental risks of migration circus.
> 
> So, I don't say "we don't need this patch."

split_huge_page also has the same requirement and there is no bug to
fix, so I don't see why to make special changes for just migrate.c
when we still have to list_add_tail for split_huge_page.

Furthermore this patch isn't fixing anything in any case and it looks
a noop to me. If the order ever gets inverted, and process2 ptes are
scanned before process1 ptes in the rmap_walk, sure the
copy-page-tables will break and stop until the process1 rmap_walk will
complete, but that is not enough! You have to repeat the rmap_walk of
process1 if the order ever gets inverted and this isn't happening in
the patch so I don't see how it could make any difference even just
for migrate.c (obviously not for split_huge_page).
--
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/