[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910021736540.20933@sister.anvils>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:46:40 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [120/136] mm: munlock use follow_page
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Greg KH wrote:
> 2.6.31-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
>
> ------------------
> From: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
>
> commit 408e82b78bcc9f1b47c76e833c3df97f675947de upstream.
>
> Hiroaki Wakabayashi points out that when mlock() has been interrupted
> by SIGKILL, the subsequent munlock() takes unnecessarily long because
> its use of __get_user_pages() insists on faulting in all the pages
> which mlock() never reached.
>
> It's worse than slowness if mlock() is terminated by Out Of Memory kill:
> the munlock_vma_pages_all() in exit_mmap() insists on faulting in all the
> pages which mlock() could not find memory for; so innocent bystanders are
> killed too, and perhaps the system hangs.
>
> __get_user_pages() does a lot that's silly for munlock(): so remove the
> munlock option from __mlock_vma_pages_range(), and use a simple loop of
> follow_page()s in munlock_vma_pages_range() instead; ignoring absent
> pages, and not marking present pages as accessed or dirty.
>
> (Change munlock() to only go so far as mlock() reached? That does not
> work out, given the convention that mlock() claims complete success even
> when it has to give up early - in part so that an underlying file can be
> extended later, and those pages locked which earlier would give SIGBUS.)
Thanks a lot for including this fix in 2.6.31.2.
If I'd done my homework, I'd be asking you to include the equivalent
in 2.6.30.9 (it's irrelevant to 2.6.27.36); but because of intervening
changes, although it would appear to apply there, it would be wrong.
And it's more than a one-liner, so I'd need to retest properly.
If there's ever a call for a 2.6.30.10, I ought to supply you with
the proper patch; but for now, unless others disagree, let's not
rush it for 2.6.30.9.
Hugh
--
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