[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110506182643.GH6330@random.random>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 20:26:43 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: "Figo.zhang" <figo1802@...il.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujisu.com, minchan.kim@...il.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]mm/compation.c: checking page in lru twice
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 02:09:55PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 07:32:46PM +0800, Figo.zhang wrote:
> >
> > in isolate_migratepages() have check page in LRU twice, the next one
> > at _isolate_lru_page().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Figo.zhang <figo1802@...il.com>
>
> Not checking for PageLRU means that PageTransHuge() gets called
> for each page. While the scanner is active and the lock released,
> a transparent hugepage can be created and potentially we test
> PageTransHuge() on a tail page. This will trigger a BUG if
> CONFIG_DEBUG_VM is set.
Agreed. The compound_order also would become unsafe even if it was
initially an head page (if it's a compound page not in lru). And
compound_trans_order isn't a solution either because we need to be
head for it to be safe like you said, better not having to use
compound_trans_order.
--
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