On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:08:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 15:54 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > We check if the pmd entry is the same as on pmd_trans_huge() in
> > handle_mm_fault(). That's enough.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Ah indeed, Will mentioned something like this on IRC as well, I hadn't
> gotten around to looking at it -- now have, thanks!
> 
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> 
> That said, where in handle_mm_fault() do we wait for a split to
> complete? We have a pmd_trans_huge() && !pmd_trans_splitting(), so a
> fault on a currently splitting pmd will fall through.
> 
> Is it the return from the fault on unlikely(pmd_trans_huge()) ?

Yes, this code will catch it:

	/* if an huge pmd materialized from under us just retry later */
	if (unlikely(pmd_trans_huge(*pmd)))
		return 0;

If the pmd is under splitting it's still a pmd_trans_huge().

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov