On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 8:04 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index 3f44b81..d1dabc9 100644
>> @@ -1426,8 +1437,13 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>> struct zone *zone,
>>
>> /* Check if we should syncronously wait for writeback */
>> if (should_reclaim_stall(nr_taken, nr_reclaimed, priority, sc)) {
>> + unsigned long nr_active, old_nr_scanned;
>> set_reclaim_mode(priority, sc, true);
>> + nr_active = clear_active_flags(&page_list, NULL);
>> + count_vm_events(PGDEACTIVATE, nr_active);
>> + old_nr_scanned = sc->nr_scanned;
>> nr_reclaimed += shrink_page_list(&page_list, zone, sc);
>> + sc->nr_scanned = old_nr_scanned;
>> }
>>
>> local_irq_disable();
>>
>> I just tested 2.6.38.6 with the attached patch. It survived dirty_ram
>> and test_mempressure without any problems other than slowness, but
>> when I hit ctrl-c to stop test_mempressure, I got the attached oom.
>
> Minchan,
>
> I'm confused now.
> If pages got SetPageActive(), should_reclaim_stall() should never return true.
> Can you please explain which bad scenario was happen?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> static void reset_reclaim_mode(struct scan_control *sc)
> {
> sc->reclaim_mode = RECLAIM_MODE_SINGLE | RECLAIM_MODE_ASYNC;
> }
>
> shrink_page_list()
> {
> (snip)
> activate_locked:
> SetPageActive(page);
> pgactivate++;
> unlock_page(page);
> reset_reclaim_mode(sc); /// here
> list_add(&page->lru, &ret_pages);
> }
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> bool should_reclaim_stall()
> {
> (snip)
>
> /* Only stall on lumpy reclaim */
> if (sc->reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_MODE_SINGLE) /// and here
> return false;
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
I did some tracing and the oops happens from the second call to
shrink_page_list after should_reclaim_stall returns true and it hits
the same pages in the same order that the earlier call just finished
calling SetPageActive on. I have *not* confirmed that the two calls
happened from the same call to shrink_inactive_list, but something's
certainly wrong in there.
This is very easy to reproduce on my laptop.
--Andy
--
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