[PATCH 0/3] Demand faulting for hugetlb

Ok, here's the next iteration of these patches.  I think I've handled
the truncate() case by comparing the hugetlbfs inode's i_size with the
mapping offset of the requested page to make sure it hasn't been
truncated.  Can anyone confirm or deny that I have the locking correct
for this?  The other patches are still unchanged.  Andrew: Did Andi
Kleen's explanation of huge_pages_needed() satisfy?
-- 
Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com)
IBM Linux Technology Center

-
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/

Follow-Ups:
- [PATCH 3/3] hugetlb: Simple overcommit check
  - From: Adam Litke <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 2/3] hugetlb: Demand fault handler
  - From: Adam Litke <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/3] Demand faulting for hugetlb
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 1/3] hugetlb: Remove get_user_pages optimization
  - From: Adam Litke <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: [BUG?] 2.6.x (2.6.13) - new signals not being delivered to a terminating (PF_EXITING) process.
Next by Date: Re: [BUG?] 2.6.x (2.6.13) - new signals not being delivered to a terminating (PF_EXITING) process.
Previous by thread: [BUG?] 2.6.x (2.6.13) - new signals not being delivered to a terminating (PF_EXITING) process.
Next by thread: [PATCH 1/3] hugetlb: Remove get_user_pages optimization
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]