On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 9:16 PM Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:48:05PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 7:23 PM Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > @@ -607,10 +605,10 @@ static long hugetlbfs_fallocate(struct file *file, > > > int mode, loff_t offset, > > > } > > > > > > /* Set numa allocation policy based on index */ > > > - hugetlb_set_vma_policy(&pseudo_vma, inode, index); > > > + hugetlb_set_vma_policy(&pseudo_vma, inode, index >> > > > huge_page_order(h)); > > > > > > /* addr is the offset within the file (zero based) */ > > > - addr = index * hpage_size; > > > + addr = index << PAGE_SHIFT & ~huge_page_mask(h); > > > > > > /* mutex taken here, fault path and hole punch */ > > > hash = hugetlb_fault_mutex_hash(h, mm, &pseudo_vma, mapping, > > > > Seems we can't use index in computing hash as long as it isn't in huge page > > size. > > Look at changes in hugetlb_fault_mutex_hash(): we shift the index right by > huge_page_order(), before calculating the hash. I don't see a problem > here. > You are right. I missed that critical point.
thanks Hillf
