On 10/02/2014 12:36 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Mel Gorman <[email protected]> wrote: >> > This patch reverts 1ba6e0b50b ("mm: numa: split_huge_page: transfer the >> > NUMA type from the pmd to the pte"). If a huge page is being split due >> > a protection change and the tail will be in a PROT_NONE vma then NUMA >> > hinting PTEs are temporarily created in the protected VMA. > So this is the particular bug I was worried about when tracing through the > code. > > Should I just apply this as-is? And mark it for stable, since this has > been around since 3.8 or so. It would seem to be a very safe change to > do, regardless of whether this is actually the issue that Dave and > maybe Sasha are seeing. > > Sasha, I notice that you weren't on the cc for Mel's patches (probably > because you got added later to the other thread), but they were all > cc'd to lkml so you should see them there. Or I can forward them > separately.
I grabbed them and will keep them in my tree for now instead of your NUMA-chainsaw-massacre patch. You've also mentioned that while I can tell you if nothing dies, I can't really tell you if everything is working well. Is there a reasonable way to easily say if NUMA is working properly? Even something that would just tell me "your NUMA balancing seems to be sane" would be good. Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
