On Thu 23-08-18 13:59:16, Mike Kravetz wrote:
[...]
> @@ -1409,6 +1419,32 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct 
> vm_area_struct *vma,
>               subpage = page - page_to_pfn(page) + pte_pfn(*pvmw.pte);
>               address = pvmw.address;
>  
> +             if (PageHuge(page)) {
> +                     if (huge_pmd_unshare(mm, &address, pvmw.pte)) {
> +                             /*
> +                              * huge_pmd_unshare unmapped an entire PMD
> +                              * page.  There is no way of knowing exactly
> +                              * which PMDs may be cached for this mm, so
> +                              * we must flush them all.  start/end were
> +                              * already adjusted above to cover this range.
> +                              */
> +                             flush_cache_range(vma, start, end);
> +                             flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end);
> +                             mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(mm, start, end);
> +
> +                             /*
> +                              * The ref count of the PMD page was dropped
> +                              * which is part of the way map counting
> +                              * is done for shared PMDs.  Return 'true'
> +                              * here.  When there is no other sharing,
> +                              * huge_pmd_unshare returns false and we will
> +                              * unmap the actual page and drop map count
> +                              * to zero.
> +                              */
> +                             page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw);
> +                             break;
> +                     }
> +             }

Wait a second. This is not correct, right? You have to call the
notifiers after page_vma_mapped_walk_done because they might be
sleepable and we are still holding the pte lock. This is btw. a problem
for other users of mmu_notifier_invalidate_range in try_to_unmap_one,
unless I am terribly confused. This would suggest 369ea8242c0fb is
incorrect.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Reply via email to