Hi,
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Daisuke Nishimura
<nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> This is a fix for a problem which has bothered me for a month.
>
> ===
> From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> In current implimentation, mem_cgroup_end_migration() decides whether the page
> migration has succeeded or not by checking "oldpage->mapping".
>
> But if we are tring to migrate a shmem swapcache, the page->mapping of it is
> NULL from the begining, so the check would be invalid.
> As a result, mem_cgroup_end_migration() assumes the migration has succeeded
> even if it's not, so "newpage" would be freed while it's not uncharged.
>
> This patch fixes it by passing mem_cgroup_end_migration() the result of the
> page migration.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>
Nice catch. I don't oppose the patch.
But as looking the code in unmap_and_move, I feel part of mem cgroup
migrate is rather awkward.
int unmap_and_move()
{
charge = mem_cgroup_prepare_migration(xxx);
..
BUG_ON(charge); <-- BUG if it is charged?
..
uncharge:
if (!charge) <-- why do we have to uncharge !charge?
mem_group_end_migration(xxx);
..
}
'charge' local variable isn't good. How about changing "uncharge" or whatever?
Of course, It would be another patch.
If you don't mind, I will send the patch or you may send the patch.
Thanks,
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>