On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 14:38 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > + if (!page_mapped(page)) {
> > > + put_anon_vma(anon_vma);
> > > + anon_vma = NULL;
> > > + goto out;
> > > + }
> >
> > Also quite opaque, needs decent commentary.
> >
> > I'd have expected this test to occur after the lock was acquired.
>
> Right, so I think we could drop that test from both here and
> page_get_anon_vma() and nothing would break, its simply avoiding some
> work in case we do detect the race with page_remove_rmap().
>
> So yes, I think I'll move it down because that'll widen the scope of
> this optimization.
OK, so I went trawling through the linux-mm logs and actually found why
this is needed under rcu_read_lock(), sadly I cannot seem to find a web
reference to 2006 linux-mm emails.
It was Hugh who noted that page_remove_rmap() only decrements
page->_mapcount but does not clear page->mapping, therefore we must test
page_mapped() after reading page->mapping while under the
rcu_read_lock() in order to determine if the pointer obtained is still
valid.
The comment that exists today in __page_lock_anon_vma() actually tries
to explain this
--
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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href