On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 08:43:27PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 01/22, Alex Thorlton wrote:
> > > > + case PR_SET_THP_DISABLE:
> > > > + case PR_GET_THP_DISABLE:
> > > > + down_write(&me->mm->mmap_sem);
> > > > + if (option == PR_SET_THP_DISABLE) {
> > > > + if (arg2)
> > > > + me->mm->def_flags |= VM_NOHUGEPAGE;
> > > > + else
> > > > + me->mm->def_flags &= ~VM_NOHUGEPAGE;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + error = !!(me->mm->flags && VM_NOHUGEPAGE);
> > >
> > > Should be:
> > >
> > > error = !!(me->mm->def_flags && VM_NOHUGEPAGE);
> >
> > No, we need to return 1 if this bit is set ;)
>
> Damn, you are right of course, we need "&". I didn't notice "&&"
> in the patch I sent and misunderstood your "&&" above ;) Sorry.
Actually, I didn't catch that either! Looking at it, though, we
definitely do want bitwise AND here, not logical.
However, what I was originally referring to is: Shouldn't we be
checking mm->***def_flags*** for the VM_NOHUGEPAGE bit, as opposed
to mm->flags? i.e. I think we want this:
error = !!(me->mm->def_flags & VM_NOHUGEPAGE);
As opposed to:
error = !!(me->mm->flags && VM_NOHUGEPAGE);
The way I understand it, the VM_NOHUGEPAGE bit is defined for
mm->vma->flags, but not for mm->flags. Am I wrong here?
- Alex
--
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/
