On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 02:18:21AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 08:52:03AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > I already explained this doesn't happend and said "I'm sorry".
> 
> Oops I must have overlooked it sorry! I just seen the trace quoted in
> the comment of the patch and that at least would need correction
> before it can be pushed in mainline, or it creates huge confusion to
> see a reverse trace for CPU A for an already tricky piece of code.
> 
> > But considering maintainance, it's not necessary to copy migration ptes
> > and we don't have to keep a fundamental risks of migration circus.
> > 
> > So, I don't say "we don't need this patch."
> 
> split_huge_page also has the same requirement and there is no bug to
> fix, so I don't see why to make special changes for just migrate.c
> when we still have to list_add_tail for split_huge_page.
> 
> Furthermore this patch isn't fixing anything in any case and it looks
> a noop to me. If the order ever gets inverted, and process2 ptes are
> scanned before process1 ptes in the rmap_walk, sure the
> copy-page-tables will break and stop until the process1 rmap_walk will
> complete, but that is not enough! You have to repeat the rmap_walk of
> process1 if the order ever gets inverted and this isn't happening in
  ^^^^^^^2
quoted text
> the patch so I don't see how it could make any difference even just
> for migrate.c (obviously not for split_huge_page).
--
unsubscribe notice
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/