On Aug 8, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 20:50:09 -0400 Ed Cashin <ecas...@coraid.com> wrote: ... >> When the workaround was created, it was with the assumption that the >> zero-count pages are not always tail pages, and that seemed to be the case >> in 2007, but as I said, I don't have a mechanism for detecting that now, so >> I cannot say whether it really happens with today's kernel. > > It sounds we should pull out all that code and retest. It shouldn't be > needed - if this results in some failure then I suspect core MM will > need changes.
OK. I'll look into that. It sure would be nice to get rid of it. > Why don't you have a "mechanism for detecting that"? It's a matter of > pointing AOE at some hugetlb pages? No, I was testing with hugetlb pages already. But there are many use case combinations, and I meant that aoe has no mechanism that has been in the aoe code all these years to catch specific (possibly rare) use cases that result in zero-count pages. It would be something like this: +static void +check_page_counts(struct bio *bio) +{ + struct bio_vec *bv; + int n; + int i; + + bio_for_each_segment(bv, bio, i) { + n = page_count(bv->bv_page); + WARN_ONCE(n <= 0, + "aoe: page %d in bio has non-positive count %d\n", + i, n); + } +} I'll add that when I try testing without the page count manipulation. -- Ed Cashin ecas...@coraid.com -- 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/