On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:21:01 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Calling isolate_lru_page() is wrong and shouldn't happen, but it not
> nessesary fatal: the page just will not be isolated if it's not on LRU.
>
> Let's downgrade the VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() to WARN_RATELIMIT().
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index eb3dd37ccd7c..71b1c29948db 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1443,7 +1443,7 @@ int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
> int ret = -EBUSY;
>
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!page_count(page), page);
> - VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageTail(page), page);
> + WARN_RATELIMIT(PageTail(page), "trying to isolate tail page");
>
> if (PageLRU(page)) {
> struct zone *zone = page_zone(page);
Confused. I thought mm-fix-bogus-vm_bug_on_page-in-isolate_lru_page.patch:
--- a/mm/vmscan.c~mm-fix-bogus-vm_bug_on_page-in-isolate_lru_page
+++ a/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1443,7 +1443,7 @@ int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
int ret = -EBUSY;
VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!page_count(page), page);
- VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageTail(page), page);
+ VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageLRU(page) && PageTail(page), page);
if (PageLRU(page)) {
struct zone *zone = page_zone(page);
was better. We *know* that we sometimes encounter LRU pages here and
we know that we handle them correctly. So why scare users by blurting
out a warning about something for which we won't be taking any action?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>