Hi, Kosaki. I don't want to make noise due to off-topic. So I open new thread. On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 17:17 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Hi Minchan, > > > OFF-TOPIC: > > > > I think you pointed out good thing, too. :) > > > > You mean although application call mlock of any vma, few pages on the vma can > > be swapout by race between mlock and reclaim? > > > > Although it's not disaster, apparently it breaks API. > > Man page > > " mlock() and munlock() > > mlock() locks pages in the address range starting at addr and > > continuing for len bytes. All pages that contain a part of the > > specified address range are guaranteed to be resident in RAM when the > > call returns successfully; the pages are guaranteed to stay in RAM > > until later unlocked." > > > > Do you have a plan to solve such problem? > > > > And how about adding simple comment about that race in page_referenced_one? > > Could you send the patch? > > I'm surprising this mail. you were pushing much patch in this area. > I believed you know all stuff ;) If I disappoint you, sorry for that. Still, there are many thing to study to me. :) > > My answer is, it don't need to fix, because it's not bug. The point is > that this one is race issue. not "pageout after mlock" issue. > If pageout and mlock occur at the exactly same time, the human can't > observe which event occur in first. it's not API violation. If it might happen, it's obviously API violation, I think. int main() { mlock(any vma, CURRENT|FUTURE); system("cat /proc/self/smaps | grep "any vma"); .. } result : 08884000-088a5000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [any vma] Size: 4 kB Rss: 4 kB ... Swap: 4 kB ... Apparently, user expected that "If I call mlock, there are whole pages of the vma in DRAM". But the result make him embarrassed :( side note : Of course, mlock's semantic is rather different with smaps's Swap. mlock's semantic just makes sure pages on DRAM after success of mlock call. it's not relate smap's swap entry. Actually, smaps's swap entry cannot compare to mlock's semantic. Some page isn't on swap device yet but on swap cache and whole PTEs of page already have swap entry(ie, all unmapped). In such case, smap's Swap entry represent it with swap page. But with semantic of mlock, it's still on RAM so that it's okay. I looked the code more detail. Fortunately, the situation you said "page_referenced() already can take unstable VM_LOCKED value. So, In worst case we make false positive pageout, but it's not disaster" cannot happen, I think. 1) mlock_fixup shrink_page_list lock_page try_to_unmap vma->vm_flags = VM_LOCKED pte_lock pte_present test get_page pte_unlock pte_lock VM_LOCKED test fail pte_unlock never pageout So, no problem. 2) mlock_fixup shrink_page_list lock_page try_to_unmap pte_lock VM_LOCKED test pass vma->vm_flags = VM_LOCKED make pte to swap entry pte_lock pte_unlock pte_present test fail pte_unlock pageout swapin by handle_mm_fault So, no problem. 3) mlock_fixup shrink_page_list lock_page try_to_unmap pte_lock VM_LOCKED test pass vma->vm_flags = VM_LOCKED make pte to swap entry pte_lock pte_unlock pte_present test fail pte_unlock cachehit in swapcache by handle_mm_fault pageout is_page_cache_freeable fail So, no problem, too. I can't think the race situation you mentioned. When 'false positive pageout' happens? Could you elaborate on it? -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html