On Thu 02-08-12 08:37:57, Mel Gorman wrote:

On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:19:34AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:

[...]

quoted

On the other hand, mine is more coupled with the sharing code so it
makes the code easier to follow and also makes the sharing more
effective because racing processes see pmd populated when checking for
shareable mappings.

It could do with a small comment above huge_pmd_share() explaining that
calling pmd_alloc() under the i_mmap_mutex is necessary to prevent two
parallel faults missing a sharing opportunity with each other but it's
not mandatory.

Sure, that's a good idea. What about the following:

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c
index 40b2500..51839d1 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c

@@ -56,7 +56,13 @@ static int vma_shareable(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr)
 }
 
 /*
- * search for a shareable pmd page for hugetlb.
+ * search for a shareable pmd page for hugetlb. In any case calls
+ * pmd_alloc and returns the corresponding pte. While this not necessary
+ * for the !shared pmd case because we can allocate the pmd later as
+ * well it makes the code much cleaner. pmd allocation is essential for
+ * the shared case though because pud has to be populated inside the
+ * same i_mmap_mutex section otherwise racing tasks could either miss
+ * the sharing (see huge_pte_offset) or selected a bad pmd for sharing.
  */
 static pte_t*
 huge_pmd_share(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pud_t *pud)

quoted

So I am more inclined to mine but I don't want to push it because both
are good and make sense. What other people think?

I vote yours

Reviewed-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>

Thanks!

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>