On 2017/5/24 19:52, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 05/24/2017 01:38 PM, Xishi Qiu wrote: >>> >>> Race condition with what? Who else would isolate our pages? >>> >> >> Hi Vlastimil, >> >> I find the root cause, if the page was not cached on the current cpu, >> lru_add_drain() will not push it to LRU. So we should handle fail >> case in mlock_vma_page(). > > Yeah that would explain it. > >> follow_page_pte() >> ... >> if (page->mapping && trylock_page(page)) { >> lru_add_drain(); /* push cached pages to LRU */ >> /* >> * Because we lock page here, and migration is >> * blocked by the pte's page reference, and we >> * know the page is still mapped, we don't even >> * need to check for file-cache page truncation. >> */ >> mlock_vma_page(page); >> unlock_page(page); >> } >> ... >> >> I think we should add yisheng's patch, also we should add the following change. >> I think it is better than use lru_add_drain_all(). > > I agree about yisheng's fix (but v2 didn't address my comments). I don't > think we should add the hunk below, as that deviates from the rest of > the design. Hi Vlastimil, The rest of the design is that mlock should always success here, right? If we don't handle the fail case, the page will be in anon/file lru list later when call __pagevec_lru_add(), but NR_MLOCK increased, this is wrong, right? Thanks, Xishi Qiu > > Thanks, > Vlastimil > >> diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c >> index 3d3ee6c..ca2aeb9 100644 >> --- a/mm/mlock.c >> +++ b/mm/mlock.c >> @@ -88,6 +88,11 @@ void mlock_vma_page(struct page *page) >> count_vm_event(UNEVICTABLE_PGMLOCKED); >> if (!isolate_lru_page(page)) >> putback_lru_page(page); >> + else { >> + ClearPageMlocked(page); >> + mod_zone_page_state(page_zone(page), NR_MLOCK, >> + -hpage_nr_pages(page)); >> + } >> } >> } >> >> Thanks, >> Xishi Qiu >> > > > . > -- 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>