[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110928180305.GB1696@barrios-desktop>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 03:03:05 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: add barrier to prevent evictable page in
unevictable list
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:14:52AM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:45:30AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > When racing between putback_lru_page and shmem_unlock happens,
> > progrom execution order is as follows, but clear_bit in processor #1
> > could be reordered right before spin_unlock of processor #1.
> > Then, the page would be stranded on the unevictable list.
> >
> > spin_lock
> > SetPageLRU
> > spin_unlock
> > clear_bit(AS_UNEVICTABLE)
> > spin_lock
> > if PageLRU()
> > if !test_bit(AS_UNEVICTABLE)
> > move evictable list
> > smp_mb
> > if !test_bit(AS_UNEVICTABLE)
> > move evictable list
> > spin_unlock
> >
> > But, pagevec_lookup in scan_mapping_unevictable_pages has rcu_read_[un]lock so
> > it could protect reordering before reaching test_bit(AS_UNEVICTABLE) on processor #1
> > so this problem never happens. But it's a unexpected side effect and we should
> > solve this problem properly.
> >
> > This patch adds a barrier after mapping_clear_unevictable.
> >
> > side-note: I didn't meet this problem but just found during review.
> >
> > Cc: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
> > Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> > Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
> > Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>
> > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
> > ---
> > mm/shmem.c | 1 +
> > mm/vmscan.c | 11 ++++++-----
> > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> > index 2d35772..22cb349 100644
> > --- a/mm/shmem.c
> > +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> > @@ -1068,6 +1068,7 @@ int shmem_lock(struct file *file, int lock, struct user_struct *user)
> > user_shm_unlock(inode->i_size, user);
> > info->flags &= ~VM_LOCKED;
> > mapping_clear_unevictable(file->f_mapping);
> > + smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
> > scan_mapping_unevictable_pages(file->f_mapping);
>
> I always get nervous when I see undocumented barriers. Maybe add a
> teensy tiny comment here?
Agree. I will try it.
>
> /*
> * Ensure that a racing putback_lru_page() can see
> * the pages of this mapping are evictable when we
> * skip them due to !PageLRU during the scan.
> */
>
> Or something like that. Otherwise, nice catch :-)
>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
Thanks!
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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