[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140103130023.fdbf96fc95c702bf63871b56@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 13:00:23 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm: fix the theoretical compound_lock() vs
prep_new_page() race
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014 20:55:47 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> get/put_page(thp_tail) paths do get_page_unless_zero(page_head) +
> compound_lock(). In theory this page_head can be already freed and
> reallocated as alloc_pages(__GFP_COMP, smaller_order). In this case
> get_page_unless_zero() can succeed right after set_page_refcounted(),
> and compound_lock() can race with the non-atomic __SetPageHead().
Would be useful to mention that these things are happening inside
prep_compound_opage() (yes?).
> Perhaps we should rework the thp locking (under discussion), but
> until then this patch moves set_page_refcounted() and adds wmb()
> to ensure that page->_count != 0 comes as a last change.
>
> I am not sure about other callers of set_page_refcounted(), but at
> first glance they look fine to me.
I don't get it. We're in prep_new_page() - this page is freshly
allocated and no other thread yet has any means by which to look it up
and start fiddling with it?
--
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