On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 22:29:39 -0400 Naoya Horiguchi <n-horigu...@ah.jp.nec.com>
wrote:
> We have a race where we try to migrate an invalid page, resulting in
> hitting VM_BUG_ON_PAGE in isolate_huge_page().
> queue_pages_hugetlb() is OK to fail, so let's check !PageHeadHuge to keep
> invalid hugepage from queuing.
>
> ..
>
> --- v3.14-rc7-mmotm-2014-03-18-16-37.orig/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ v3.14-rc7-mmotm-2014-03-18-16-37/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -530,6 +530,17 @@ static int queue_pages_hugetlb(pte_t *pte, unsigned long
> addr,
> if (!pte_present(entry))
> return 0;
> page = pte_page(entry);
> +
> + /*
> + * Trinity found that page could be a non-hugepage. This is an
> + * unexpected behavior, but it's not clear how this problem happens.
> + * So let's simply skip such corner case. Page migration can often
> + * fail for various reasons, so it's ok to just skip the address
> + * unsuitable to hugepage migration.
> + */
> + if (!PageHeadHuge(page))
> + return 0;
> +
Whoa, we won't be doing this thanks. The day we resort to this sort of
thing is the day we revert to the 2.2.26 VM.
I suppose I'd be OK with putting
if (WARN_ON(!PageHeadHuge(page)))
return 0;
in there as a temporary be-kind-to-testers thing, but we must get a
full understanding of what's happening in there.
Was this problem caused by or exposed by the pagetable walker patches?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
