On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 19:33 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > > > Now I wonder if the assertion that newpage count == 1 could be violated? > > I don't see how. We've just allocated and filled it and haven't > > unlocked it yet, so we should hold the only reference. Do you agree? > > Disagree: IIRC, excellent example of the kind of assumption > that becomes invalid with Nick's speculative page references. > > Someone interested in the previous use of the page may have > incremented the refcount, and in due course will find that > it's got reused for something else, and will then back off. > Yeah. Kosaki-san mentioned that we'd need some rework for the speculative page cache work. Looks like we'll need to drop the VM_BUG_ON(). I need to go read up on the new invariants we can trust with the speculative page cache. Thanks, Lee -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
