On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 08:14:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 27-08-15 09:36:34, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:09:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 26-08-15 14:29:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins
On Thu 27-08-15 09:36:34, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:09:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 26-08-15 14:29:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > But if you do one day implement that,
On Thu 27-08-15 10:28:48, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 27-08-15 17:09:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Btw. Do we need the same think for page::mapping and KSM?
> >
> > I guess we are safe here because the address for mappings comes from
> >
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 27-08-15 17:09:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > Btw. Do we need the same think for page::mapping and KSM?
>
> I guess we are safe here because the address for mappings comes from
> kmalloc and that aligned properly, right?
Not quite right, in
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:09:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-08-15 14:29:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> [...]
> > > But if you do one day implement that, wouldn't sl?b.c have to use
> > > call_rcu_with_added_meaning()
On Thu 27-08-15 17:09:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> Btw. Do we need the same think for page::mapping and KSM?
I guess we are safe here because the address for mappings comes from
kmalloc and that aligned properly, right?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Wed 26-08-15 14:29:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
[...]
> > But if you do one day implement that, wouldn't sl?b.c have to use
> > call_rcu_with_added_meaning() instead of call_rcu(), to be in danger
> > of getting that bit set? (No
On Thu 27-08-15 09:36:34, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:09:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 26-08-15 14:29:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
[...]
But if you do one day implement that, wouldn't sl?b.c
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:09:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 26-08-15 14:29:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
[...]
But if you do one day implement that, wouldn't sl?b.c have to use
call_rcu_with_added_meaning() instead of
On Thu 27-08-15 10:28:48, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 27-08-15 17:09:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
Btw. Do we need the same think for page::mapping and KSM?
I guess we are safe here because the address for mappings comes from
kmalloc and that
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 27-08-15 17:09:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
Btw. Do we need the same think for page::mapping and KSM?
I guess we are safe here because the address for mappings comes from
kmalloc and that aligned properly, right?
Not quite right, in fact.
On Thu 27-08-15 17:09:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
Btw. Do we need the same think for page::mapping and KSM?
I guess we are safe here because the address for mappings comes from
kmalloc and that aligned properly, right?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Wed 26-08-15 14:29:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
[...]
But if you do one day implement that, wouldn't sl?b.c have to use
call_rcu_with_added_meaning() instead of call_rcu(), to be in danger
of getting that bit set? (No rcu_head
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 08:14:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 27-08-15 09:36:34, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:09:17PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 26-08-15 14:29:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:28:39PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Tue,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:13PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:04:12PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 02:19:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM
On 08/26/2015 05:04 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
That's
bad news then. It's not that we would trigger that bit when the rcu_head part of
the union is "active". It's that pfn scanners could inspect such page at
arbitrary
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 02:19:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:13PM
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:13PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 06:04:12PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 02:19:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300,
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 02:19:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:13PM +0200,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:28:39PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:18:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On
On 08/26/2015 05:04 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
That's
bad news then. It's not that we would trigger that bit when the rcu_head part of
the union is active. It's that pfn scanners could inspect such page at
arbitrary
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:13PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>> On 08/21/2015 02:10 PM, Kirill A.
On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:13PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> On 08/21/2015 02:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:36:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:13PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 08/21/2015 02:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > >On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:36:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >>On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:13PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 08/21/2015 02:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:36:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>The patch introduces
On 08/21/2015 02:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:36:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov"
wrote:
The patch introduces page->compound_head into third double word block in
front of compound_dtor and compound_order.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:13PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 08/21/2015 02:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:36:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300 Kirill A. Shutemov
kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
The patch
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:13PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 08/21/2015 02:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:36:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300 Kirill A.
On 08/21/2015 02:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:36:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300 Kirill A. Shutemov
kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
The patch introduces page-compound_head into third double word block in
front of
On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:13PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 08/21/2015 02:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:36:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 25.8.2015 22:11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:33:54PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:44:13PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 08/21/2015 02:10 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
On 08/21/2015 09:34 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:31:09 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov"
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:11:27AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Is this really true? For example if it's a slab page, will that
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:21:45PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Hugh has pointed that compound_head() call can be unsafe in some
> context. There's one example:
>
> CPU0CPU1
>
> isolate_migratepages_block()
> page_count()
> compound_head()
>
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 01:59:45AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300
> "Kirill A. Shutemov" wrote:
>
> > Hugh has pointed that compound_head() call can be unsafe in some
> > context. There's one example:
> >
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h
On 08/21/2015 09:34 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:31:09 +0300 Kirill A. Shutemov kir...@shutemov.name
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:11:27AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Is this really true? For example if it's a slab
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:21:45PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Hugh has pointed that compound_head() call can be unsafe in some
context. There's one example:
CPU0CPU1
isolate_migratepages_block()
page_count()
compound_head()
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 01:59:45AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300
Kirill A. Shutemov kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Hugh has pointed that compound_head() call can be unsafe in some
context. There's one example:
[...]
diff --git
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300
"Kirill A. Shutemov" wrote:
> Hugh has pointed that compound_head() call can be unsafe in some
> context. There's one example:
>
[...]
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index 0735bc0a351a..a4c4b7d07473 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300
Kirill A. Shutemov kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Hugh has pointed that compound_head() call can be unsafe in some
context. There's one example:
[...]
diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
index 0735bc0a351a..a4c4b7d07473 100644
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:31:09 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov"
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:11:27AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Is this really true? For example if it's a
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:31:09 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov"
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:11:27AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >
> > > > Is this really true? For example if it's a slab page, will that page
> > > > ever be inspected by
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:11:27AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> > > Is this really true? For example if it's a slab page, will that page
> > > ever be inspected by code which is looking for the PageTail bit?
> >
> > +Christoph.
> >
> > What
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Is this really true? For example if it's a slab page, will that page
> > ever be inspected by code which is looking for the PageTail bit?
>
> +Christoph.
>
> What we know for sure is that space is not used in tail pages, otherwise
> it would
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:36:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov"
> wrote:
>
> > Hugh has pointed that compound_head() call can be unsafe in some
> > context. There's one example:
> >
> > CPU0CPU1
>
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 04:36:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300 Kirill A. Shutemov
kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Hugh has pointed that compound_head() call can be unsafe in some
context. There's one example:
CPU0
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Is this really true? For example if it's a slab page, will that page
ever be inspected by code which is looking for the PageTail bit?
+Christoph.
What we know for sure is that space is not used in tail pages, otherwise
it would collide with
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:11:27AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Is this really true? For example if it's a slab page, will that page
ever be inspected by code which is looking for the PageTail bit?
+Christoph.
What we know for
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:31:09 +0300 Kirill A. Shutemov
kir...@shutemov.name wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:11:27AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Is this really true? For example if it's
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:31:09 +0300 Kirill A. Shutemov kir...@shutemov.name
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:11:27AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Is this really true? For example if it's a slab page, will that page
ever be
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov"
wrote:
> Hugh has pointed that compound_head() call can be unsafe in some
> context. There's one example:
>
> CPU0CPU1
>
> isolate_migratepages_block()
> page_count()
> compound_head()
>
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:21:45 +0300 Kirill A. Shutemov
kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Hugh has pointed that compound_head() call can be unsafe in some
context. There's one example:
CPU0CPU1
isolate_migratepages_block()
page_count()
Hugh has pointed that compound_head() call can be unsafe in some
context. There's one example:
CPU0CPU1
isolate_migratepages_block()
page_count()
compound_head()
!!PageTail() == true
put_page()
Hugh has pointed that compound_head() call can be unsafe in some
context. There's one example:
CPU0CPU1
isolate_migratepages_block()
page_count()
compound_head()
!!PageTail() == true
put_page()
60 matches
Mail list logo