diff options
author | Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> | 2023-10-23 23:38:41 -0700 |
---|---|---|
committer | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> | 2023-10-25 16:47:14 -0700 |
commit | b1454b463c217e5bc553acc44b2389d9257c9708 (patch) | |
tree | d6fd21b602184f797eb246bce240a4ad23df0690 /mm/hmm.c | |
parent | 1cbf0a58847b30507611f92ad69964ef37264d14 (diff) | |
download | linux-stable-b1454b463c217e5bc553acc44b2389d9257c9708.tar.gz linux-stable-b1454b463c217e5bc553acc44b2389d9257c9708.tar.bz2 linux-stable-b1454b463c217e5bc553acc44b2389d9257c9708.zip |
mm: mlock: avoid folio_within_range() on KSM pages
Since commit dc68badcede4 ("mm: mlock: update mlock_pte_range to handle
large folio") I've just occasionally seen VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_ksm)
warnings from folio_within_range(), in a splurge after testing with KSM
hyperactive.
folio_referenced_one()'s use of folio_within_vma() is safe because it
checks folio_test_large() first; but allow_mlock_munlock() needs to do the
same to avoid those warnings (or check !folio_test_ksm() itself? Or move
either check into folio_within_range()? Hard to tell without more
examples of its use).
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/23852f6a-5bfa-1ffd-30db-30c5560ad426@google.com
Fixes: dc68badcede4 ("mm: mlock: update mlock_pte_range to handle large folio")
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Stefan Roesch <shr@devkernel.io>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'mm/hmm.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions