[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090429165940.094efd0a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:59:40 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
mingo@...e.hu, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, thomas.pi@...or.dea, ylalym@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ltt-dev@...ts.casi.polymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix dirty page accounting in
redirty_page_for_writepage()
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:25:46 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> Basically, the following execution :
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/testfile
>
> will slowly fill _all_ ram available without taking into account memory
> pressure.
>
> This is because the dirty page accounting is incorrect in
> redirty_page_for_writepage.
>
> This patch adds missing dirty page accounting in redirty_page_for_writepage().
The patch changes __set_page_dirty_nobuffers(), not
redirty_page_for_writepage().
__set_page_dirty_nobuffers() has a huge number of callers.
> --- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2009-04-29 18:14:48.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-2.6-lttng/mm/page-writeback.c 2009-04-29 18:23:59.000000000 -0400
> @@ -1237,6 +1237,12 @@ int __set_page_dirty_nobuffers(struct pa
> if (!mapping)
> return 1;
>
> + /*
> + * Take care of setting back page accounting correctly.
> + */
> + inc_zone_page_state(page, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> + inc_bdi_stat(mapping->backing_dev_info, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> +
> spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> mapping2 = page_mapping(page);
> if (mapping2) { /* Race with truncate? */
>
But __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() calls account_page_dirtied(), which
already does the above two operations. afacit we're now
double-accounting.
Now, it's possible that the accounting goes wrong very occasionally in
the "/* Race with truncate? */" case. If the truncate path clears the
page's dirty bit then it will decrement the dirty-page accounting, but
this code path will fail to perform the increment of the dirty-page
accounting. IOW, once this function has set PG_Dirty, it is committed
to altering some or all of the page-dirty accounting.
But afacit your test case will not trigger the race-with-truncate anyway?
Can you determine at approximately what frequency (pages-per-second)
this accounting leak is occurring in your test?
--
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