[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]