On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 01:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Move the hibernation check from scan_swap_map() into try_to_free_swap():
Well, it doesn't really "move" anything. It removes one test (usage ==
SWAP_HAS_CACHE) and adds a quite different one (gfp_allowed_mask &
__GFP_IO).
> to catch not only the common case when hibernation's allocation itself
> triggers swap reuse, but also the less likely case when concurrent page
> reclaim (shrink_page_list) might happen to try_to_free_swap from a page.
>
> Hibernation already clears __GFP_IO from the gfp_allowed_mask, to stop
> reclaim from going to swap: check that to prevent swap reuse too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ondrej Zary <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrea Gelmini <andrea.gelmini@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx
> ---
>
> mm/swapfile.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> --- swap1/mm/swapfile.c 2010-09-05 22:37:07.000000000 -0700
> +++ swap2/mm/swapfile.c 2010-09-05 22:45:54.000000000 -0700
> @@ -318,10 +318,8 @@ checks:
> if (offset > si->highest_bit)
> scan_base = offset = si->lowest_bit;
>
> - /* reuse swap entry of cache-only swap if not hibernation. */
> - if (vm_swap_full()
> - && usage == SWAP_HAS_CACHE
> - && si->swap_map[offset] == SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
> + /* reuse swap entry of cache-only swap if not busy. */
> + if (vm_swap_full() && si->swap_map[offset] == SWAP_HAS_CACHE) {
> int swap_was_freed;
> spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> swap_was_freed = __try_to_reclaim_swap(si, offset);
This hunk is already present in 2.6.35.
> @@ -688,6 +686,24 @@ int try_to_free_swap(struct page *page)
> if (page_swapcount(page))
> return 0;
>
> + /*
> + * Once hibernation has begun to create its image of memory,
> + * there's a danger that one of the calls to try_to_free_swap()
> + * - most probably a call from __try_to_reclaim_swap() while
> + * hibernation is allocating its own swap pages for the image,
> + * but conceivably even a call from memory reclaim - will free
> + * the swap from a page which has already been recorded in the
> + * image as a clean swapcache page, and then reuse its swap for
> + * another page of the image. On waking from hibernation, the
> + * original page might be freed under memory pressure, then
> + * later read back in from swap, now with the wrong data.
> + *
> + * Hibernation clears bits from gfp_allowed_mask to prevent
> + * memory reclaim from writing to disk, so check that here.
> + */
> + if (!(gfp_allowed_mask & __GFP_IO))
> + return 0;
> +
> delete_from_swap_cache(page);
> SetPageDirty(page);
> return 1;
This is the good bit. I guess the (unCc:ed!) -stable guys would like a
standalone patch.
Also, are patches [3/4] and [4/4] really -stable material??
--
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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>