Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752579AbZIIBqY (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 21:46:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752169AbZIIBqX (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 21:46:23 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:59710 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751434AbZIIBqW (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Sep 2009 21:46:22 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:44:23 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Andrew Morton , KOSAKI Motohiro , Linus Torvalds , Nick Piggin , Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] mm: reinstate ZERO_PAGE Message-Id: <20090909104423.4bd23a2c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20090908113734.869cdad7.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2469 Lines: 70 On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:56:57 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > A nitpick but this was a concern you shown, IIUC. > > > > == __get_user_pages().. > > > > if (pages) { > > pages[i] = page; > > > > flush_anon_page(vma, page, start); > > flush_dcache_page(page); > > } > > == > > > > This part will call flush_dcache_page() even when ZERO_PAGE is found. > > > > Don't we need to mask this ? > > No, it's okay to flush_dcache_page() on ZERO_PAGE: we always used to > do that there, and the arches I remember offhand won't do anything > with it anyway, once they see page->mapping NULL. > > What you're remembering, that I did object to, was the way your > FOLL_NOZERO ended up doing > pages[i] = NULL; > flush_anon_page(vma, NULL, start); > flush_dcache_page(NULL); > > which would cause an oops when those arches look at page->mapping. > > I should take another look at your FOLL_NOZERO: I may have dismissed > it too quickly, after seeing that bug, and oopsing on x86 when > mlocking a readonly anonymous area. > > Though I like that we don't _need_ to change mlock.c for reinstated > ZERO_PAGE, this morning I'm having trouble persuading myself that > mlocking a readonly anonymous area is too silly to optimize for. > > Maybe the very people who persuaded you to bring back the anonymous > use of ZERO_PAGE, are also doing a huge mlock of the area first? No, as far as I know, they'll not do huge mlock. Thanks, -Kame > So if two or more are starting up at the same time on the same box, > more bouncing than is healthy (and more than they would have seen > in the old days of ZERO_PAGE but no lock_page on it there). > > I'd like to persuade myself not to bother, > but may want to add a further patch for that later. > > Hugh > > -- > 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: email@kvack.org > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/