[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070103214121.997be3e6.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:41:21 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Andrea Gelmini <gelma@...ma.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: VM: Fix nasty and subtle race in shared mmap'ed page writeback
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> wrote:
> Actually, I think 2.6.18 may have a subtle variation on it.
>
> In particular, I look back at the try_to_free_buffers() thing that I hated
> so much, and it makes me wonder.. It used to do:
>
> spin_lock(&mapping->private_lock);
> ret = drop_buffers(page, &buffers_to_free);
> spin_unlock(&mapping->private_lock);
> if (ret) {
> .. crappy comment ..
> if (test_clear_page_dirty(page))
> task_io_account_cancelled_write(PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
> }
>
> and I think that at least on SMP, we had a race with another CPU doing the
> "mark page dirty if it was dirty in the PTE" at the same time. Because the
> marking dirty would come in, find no buffers (they just got dropped), and
> then mark the page dirty (ignoring the lack of any buffers), but then the
> above would do the "test_clear_page_dirty()" thing on it.
>
That bug was introduced in 2.6.19, with the dirty page tracking patches.
2.6.18 and earlier used ->private_lock coverage in try_to_free_buffers() to
prevent it.
> Ie the race, I think, existed where that crappy comment was.
The comment was complete, accurate and needed.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists