[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160201143853.GA30090@node.shutemov.name>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 16:38:53 +0200
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: fix bogus VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() in isolate_lru_page()
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 03:24:46PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 01-02-16 16:26:08, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > We don't care if there's a tail pages which is not on LRU. We are not
> > going to isolate them anyway.
>
> yes we are not going to isolate them but calling this function on a
> tail page is wrong in principle, no? PageLRU check is racy outside of
> lru_lock so what if we are racing here. I know, highly unlikely but not
> impossible. So I am not really sure this is an improvement. When would
> we hit this VM_BUG_ON and it wouldn't be a bug or at least suspicious
> usage?
Yes, there is no point in calling isolate_lru_page() for tail pages, but
we do this anyway -- see the second patch.
And we need to validate all drivers, that they don't forget to set VM_IO
or make vma_migratable() return false in other way.
Alternative approach would be to downgrate the VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() to
WARN_ONCE_ON(). This way we would have chance to catch bad callers.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists