On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:48:05PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 7:23 PM Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > @@ -607,10 +605,10 @@ static long hugetlbfs_fallocate(struct file *file, > > int mode, loff_t offset, > > } > > > > /* Set numa allocation policy based on index */ > > - hugetlb_set_vma_policy(&pseudo_vma, inode, index); > > + hugetlb_set_vma_policy(&pseudo_vma, inode, index >> > > huge_page_order(h)); > > > > /* addr is the offset within the file (zero based) */ > > - addr = index * hpage_size; > > + addr = index << PAGE_SHIFT & ~huge_page_mask(h); > > > > /* mutex taken here, fault path and hole punch */ > > hash = hugetlb_fault_mutex_hash(h, mm, &pseudo_vma, mapping, > > Seems we can't use index in computing hash as long as it isn't in huge page > size.
Look at changes in hugetlb_fault_mutex_hash(): we shift the index right by huge_page_order(), before calculating the hash. I don't see a problem here. -- Kirill A. Shutemov
