From: Chen, K. W <ken...@in...> - 2004-04-16 02:49:25
|
>>>> David Gibson wrote on Thursday, April 15, 2004 6:41 PM > > > > @@ -175,7 +132,6 @@ struct page *follow_huge_addr(struct mm_ > > > > return NULL; > > > > page = pte_page(*ptep); > > > > page += ((addr & ~HPAGE_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT); > > > > - get_page(page); > > > > return page; > > > > } > > > > > > As far as I can tell, the removal of these get_page()s is also > > > unrelated to the demand paging per se. But afaict removing them is > > > correct - the corresponding logic in follow_page() for normal pages > > > doesn't appear to do a get_page(), nor do all archs do a get_page(). > > > > > > Does that sound right to you? > > > > It's a bug in the code that was never exercised with prefaulting. See > > get_user_pages() that short circuits the rest of faulting code with > > is_vm_hugetlb_page() test. > > Erm.. it's not clear to me that it could never be exercise: > get_user_pages() is not the only caller of follow_page(). At least we all agree it's a bug :-) > > > If so, the patch below ought to be safe (and indeed a bugfix) to > > > apply now: > > > > Yep, that's correct, I already did x86 and ia64 in one of the three > > patches posted. ;-) > > Yes, I know, but I'm trying to separate which parts of your patches > are fixes/cleanups for pre-existing problems, and which are genuinely > new for demand paging. The only part I know that is bug fix is the extra get_page() reference in follow_huge_addr(). All others are for demand paging. - Ken |