On Sat, 7 May 2011, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > Here's the patch I was testing last night, but I do want to test it > > some more (I've not even tried your unmounting case yet), and I do want > > to make some changes to it (some comments, and see if I can move the > > mem_cgroup_cache_charge outside of the mutex, making it GFP_KERNEL > > rather than GFP_NOFS - at the time that mem_cgroup charging went in, > > we did not know here if it was actually a shmem swap page, whereas > > nowadays we can be sure, since that's noted in the swap_map). > > > > In shmem_unuse_inode I'm widening the shmem_swaplist_mutex to protect > > against shmem_evict_inode; and in shmem_writepage adding to the list > > earlier, while holding lock on page still in pagecache to protect it. > > > > But testing last night showed corruption on this laptop (no problem > > on other machines): I'm guessing it's unrelated, but I can't be sure > > of that without more extended testing. > > This patch fixed my problem, I didn't catch any crashes on my test-case: > swapout-unmount. Thank you, Konstantin, for testing that and reporting back. I tried using your script on Thursday, but couldn't get the tuning right for this machine: with numbers too big everything would go OOM, with numbers too small it wouldn't even go to swap, with numbers on the edge it would soon settle into a steady state with almost nothing in swap. Just once, without the patch, I did get to "Self-destruct in 5 seconds", but that was not reproducible enough for me to test that the patch would be fixing anything. I was going to try today on other machines with more cpus and more memory, though not as much as yours; but now I'll let your report save me the time, and just add your Tested-by. Big thank you for that! Besides adding comments, I have changed the patch around since then, at the shmem_unuse_inode end: to avoid any memory allocation while holding the mutex (and then we no longer need to drop and retake info->lock, so it gets a little simpler). It would be dishonest of me to claim your Tested-by for the changed code (and your mount/write/umount loop would not have been testing swapoff): since it is an independent fix with a different justification, I'll split that part off into a 2/3. 3/3 being the fix to the "corruption" I noticed while testing, corruption being on the filesystem I had on /dev/loop0, over a tmpfs file filling its filesystem: when I wrote, I'd missed the "I/O" errors in /var/log/messages. It was another case of a long-standing but largely theoretical race, now made easily reproducible by recent changes (the preallocation in between find_lock_page and taking info->lock): when the filesystem is full, you could get ENOSPC from a race in bringing back a previously allocated page from swap. I'll write these three up now and send off to Andrew. Hugh -- 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>