search for: range_end

...by 0x8160DA7: do_begin (eval.c:1174) ==32503== by 0x815F0EB: Rf_eval (eval.c:461) ==32503== by 0x8162210: Rf_applyClosure (eval.c:667) The leaked blocks are allocated in iinternal_function build_range_exp() at 5200 /* Use realloc since mbcset->range_starts and mbcset->range_ends 5201 are NULL if *range_alloc == 0. */ 5202 new_array_start = re_realloc (mbcset->range_starts, wchar_t, 5203 new_nranges); 5204 new_array_end = re_realloc (mbcset->range_ends, wchar_t, 5205...

...tes in 0 blocks. ==28643== still reachable: 12,599,585 bytes in 5,915 blocks. ==28643== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. ==28643== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown. ==28643== To see them, rerun with: --show-reachable=yes The flagged memory block is the range_ends component of mbcset. I think that range_starts was also being leaked, but valgrind was combining the two. It looks like the cpp macro _LIBC is not defined when I compile R in this Linux box. regex.c defines range_ends and range_starts as different types, depending on the value of _LIBC, and it...

...> ''255'', :octet3 => ''254'', :octet4 => ''0'' }, :range_start => ''10'', :range_end => ''100''} assert_response :success puts NetworkSegment.find(:all).size end It seems that creating a new network_segment in my test is not working. Yet, I am not sure why. $ ruby test/functional/networking_controller_test.rb Loaded suite networking_controller_test S...

...== still reachable: 12,599,585 bytes in 5,915 blocks. > ==28643== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. > ==28643== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown. > ==28643== To see them, rerun with: --show-reachable=yes > > The flagged memory block is the range_ends component of mbcset. > I think that range_starts was also being leaked, but valgrind was > combining the two. > > It looks like the cpp macro _LIBC is not defined when I compile > R in this Linux box. regex.c defines range_ends and range_starts > as different types, depending on...

..._notifier_invalidate_range_start_nonblock(&range)) { > > tlb_finish_mmu(&tlb, range.start, range.end); > > ret = false; > > continue; > > } > > unmap_page_range(&tlb, vma, range.start, range.end, NULL); > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range); > > > > Which looks like it creates an unbalanced start/end pairing if any > > start returns EAGAIN? > > > > This does not seem OK.. Many users require start/end to be paired to > > keep track of their internal locking. Ie for instance hmm breaks &...

...is is a problem: I see in __oom_reap_task_mm(): if (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_nonblock(&range)) { tlb_finish_mmu(&tlb, range.start, range.end); ret = false; continue; } unmap_page_range(&tlb, vma, range.start, range.end, NULL); mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range); Which looks like it creates an unbalanced start/end pairing if any start returns EAGAIN? This does not seem OK.. Many users require start/end to be paired to keep track of their internal locking. Ie for instance hmm breaks because the hmm->notifiers counter becomes unable to get t...

...ve started relying on a new semantic in the meantime, > > > back then, none of the notifier has even started any action in blocking > > > mode on a EAGAIN bailout. Most of them simply did trylock early in the > > > process and bailed out so there was nothing to do for the range_end > > > callback. > > > > Single notifiers are not the problem. I tried to make this clear in > > the commit message, but lets be more explicit. > > > > We have *two* notifiers registered to the mm, A and B: > > > > A invalidate_range_start: (has...

...r here: when page is write protected then > > > > it does not look like .invalidate_range is invoked. > > > > > > > > E.g. mm/ksm.c calls > > > > > > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start and > > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end but not mmu_notifier_invalidate_range. > > > > > > > > Similarly, rmap in page_mkclean_one will not call > > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range. > > > > > > > > If I'm right vhost won't get notified when page is write-protected si...

...r here: when page is write protected then > > > > it does not look like .invalidate_range is invoked. > > > > > > > > E.g. mm/ksm.c calls > > > > > > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start and > > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end but not mmu_notifier_invalidate_range. > > > > > > > > Similarly, rmap in page_mkclean_one will not call > > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range. > > > > > > > > If I'm right vhost won't get notified when page is write-protected si...

The hmm_mirror_ops callback function sync_cpu_device_pagetables() passes a struct hmm_update which is a simplified version of struct mmu_notifier_range. This is unnecessary so replace hmm_update with mmu_notifier_range directly. Signed-off-by: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell at nvidia.com> Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse at redhat.com> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com>

...sk_mm(): > > if (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_nonblock(&range)) { > tlb_finish_mmu(&tlb, range.start, range.end); > ret = false; > continue; > } > unmap_page_range(&tlb, vma, range.start, range.end, NULL); > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range); > > Which looks like it creates an unbalanced start/end pairing if any > start returns EAGAIN? > > This does not seem OK.. Many users require start/end to be paired to > keep track of their internal locking. Ie for instance hmm breaks > because the hmm->notifi...

...be new users have started relying on a new semantic in the meantime, > > back then, none of the notifier has even started any action in blocking > > mode on a EAGAIN bailout. Most of them simply did trylock early in the > > process and bailed out so there was nothing to do for the range_end > > callback. > > Single notifiers are not the problem. I tried to make this clear in > the commit message, but lets be more explicit. > > We have *two* notifiers registered to the mm, A and B: > > A invalidate_range_start: (has no blocking) > spin_lock() >...

...ing on a new semantic in the meantime, > > > > back then, none of the notifier has even started any action in blocking > > > > mode on a EAGAIN bailout. Most of them simply did trylock early in the > > > > process and bailed out so there was nothing to do for the range_end > > > > callback. > > > > > > Single notifiers are not the problem. I tried to make this clear in > > > the commit message, but lets be more explicit. > > > > > > We have *two* notifiers registered to the mm, A and B: > > > > &...

...re: when page is write protected then >>>>> it does not look like .invalidate_range is invoked. >>>>> >>>>> E.g. mm/ksm.c calls >>>>> >>>>> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start and >>>>> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end but not mmu_notifier_invalidate_range. >>>>> >>>>> Similarly, rmap in page_mkclean_one will not call >>>>> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range. >>>>> >>>>> If I'm right vhost won't get notified when page is write-protected...

...I just can't spot though. > > This is probably my fault in how I explained things, I seem to have had > a bug in my code. > > Let me try again. > > mas_walk(&mas) will go to the range of mas.index > It will set mas.index = range_start > It will set mas.last = range_end > It will return entry in that range. > > Your code is walking to addr (0xc0000, say) > You get NULL > and the range is now: mas.index = 0, mas.last = ULONG_MAX > > You set mas.last = 0xc0000 + 0x40000 -1 > You store your va in the range of 0 - 0xfffff - This isn't wh...

A migrating transparent huge page has to already be unmapped. Otherwise, the page could be modified while it is being copied to a new page and data could be lost. The function __split_huge_pmd() checks for a PMD migration entry before calling __split_huge_pmd_locked() leading one to think that __split_huge_pmd_locked() can handle splitting a migrating PMD. However, the code always increments the

...t;>>> { >>> I also wonder here: when page is write protected then >>> it does not look like .invalidate_range is invoked. >>> >>> E.g. mm/ksm.c calls >>> >>> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start and >>> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end but not mmu_notifier_invalidate_range. >>> >>> Similarly, rmap in page_mkclean_one will not call >>> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range. >>> >>> If I'm right vhost won't get notified when page is write-protected since you >>> didn't insta...

...v_limit) > > > { > > > > I also wonder here: when page is write protected then > > it does not look like .invalidate_range is invoked. > > > > E.g. mm/ksm.c calls > > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start and > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end but not mmu_notifier_invalidate_range. > > > > Similarly, rmap in page_mkclean_one will not call > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range. > > > > If I'm right vhost won't get notified when page is write-protected since you > > didn't install start/end not...

...v_limit) > > > { > > > > I also wonder here: when page is write protected then > > it does not look like .invalidate_range is invoked. > > > > E.g. mm/ksm.c calls > > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start and > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end but not mmu_notifier_invalidate_range. > > > > Similarly, rmap in page_mkclean_one will not call > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range. > > > > If I'm right vhost won't get notified when page is write-protected since you > > didn't install start/end not...

...However, we still suggest syncing the + * diff so that we can get within the target range. + */ + s64 nr_to_write = + (!config_pages(vb) ? LONG_MAX : -diff); + struct writeback_control wbc = { + .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_ALL, + .nr_to_write = nr_to_write, + .range_start = 0, + .range_end = LLONG_MAX, + }; + sync_inode(&the_inode.inode, &wbc); + } + update_balloon_size(vb); + } + return 0; +} + +static ssize_t virtballoon_attr_show(struct device *dev, + struct device_attribute *attr, + char *buf); + +static DEVICE_ATTR(total_memory, 0644, + virtballoon_...