On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 01:44:29PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
>> <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:43:18 +0900
>> > Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:26 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki /*
>> >> >> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> >> >> index af35b75..d5ea1f2 100644
>> >> >> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> >> >> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> >> >> @@ -1394,9 +1394,11 @@ int rmap_walk(struct page *page, int (*rmap_one)(struct page *,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> if (unlikely(PageKsm(page)))
>> >> >> return rmap_walk_ksm(page, rmap_one, arg);
>> >> >> - else if (PageAnon(page))
>> >> >> + else if (PageAnon(page)) {
>> >> >> + if (PageSwapCache(page))
>> >> >> + return SWAP_AGAIN;
>> >> >> return rmap_walk_anon(page, rmap_one, arg);
>> >> >
>> >> > SwapCache has a condition as (PageSwapCache(page) && page_mapped(page) == true.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> In case of tmpfs, page has swapcache but not mapped.
>> >>
>> >> > Please see do_swap_page(), PageSwapCache bit is cleared only when
>> >> >
>> >> > do_swap_page()...
>> >> > swap_free(entry);
>> >> > if (vm_swap_full() || (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) || PageMlocked(page))
>> >> > try_to_free_swap(page);
>> >> >
>> >> > Then, PageSwapCache is cleared only when swap is freeable even if mapped.
>> >> >
>> >> > rmap_walk_anon() should be called and the check is not necessary.
>> >>
>> >> Frankly speaking, I don't understand what is Mel's problem, why he added
>> >> Swapcache check in rmap_walk, and why do you said we don't need it.
>> >>
>> >> Could you explain more detail if you don't mind?
>> >>
>> > I may miss something.
>> >
>> > unmap_and_move()
>> > 1. try_to_unmap(TTU_MIGRATION)
>> > 2. move_to_newpage
>> > 3. remove_migration_ptes
>> > -> rmap_walk()
>> >
>> > Then, to map a page back we unmapped we call rmap_walk().
>> >
>> > Assume a SwapCache which is mapped, then, PageAnon(page) == true.
>> >
>> > At 1. try_to_unmap() will rewrite pte with swp_entry of SwapCache.
>> > mapcount goes to 0.
>> > At 2. SwapCache is copied to a new page.
>> > At 3. The new page is mapped back to the place. Now, newpage's mapcount is 0.
>> > Before patch, the new page is mapped back to all ptes.
>> > After patch, the new page is not mapped back because its mapcount is 0.
>> >
>> > I don't think shared SwapCache of anon is not an usual behavior, so, the logic
>> > before patch is more attractive.
>> >
>> > If SwapCache is not mapped before "1", we skip "1" and rmap_walk will do nothing
>> > because page->mapping is NULL.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks. I agree. We don't need the check.
>> Then, my question is why Mel added the check in rmap_walk.
>> He mentioned some BUG trigger and fixed things after this patch.
>> What's it?
>
> If I remove the check for (PageSwapCache(page) && !page_mapped(page))
> in rmap_walk(), then the bug below occurs. The first one is lockdep going
> bad because it's accessing a bad lock implying that anon_vma->lock is
> already invalid. The bug that triggers after it is the list walk.
Thanks. I think it's possible. It's subtle problem.
Assume !page_mapped && PageAnon(page) && PageSwapCache
0. PageAnon check
1. race window <---- anon_vma free!!!!
2. rcu_read_lock()
3. skip_unmap
4. move_to_new_page
5. newpage->mapping = page->mapping <--- !!!! It's invalid
6. mapping->a_ops->migratepage
7. radix tree change, copy page (still new page anon is NULL)
8. remove_migrate_ptes
9. rmap_walk
10. PageAnon is true --> we are deceived.
11. rmap_walk_anon -> go bomb!
Does it make sense?
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href