> > My concern was race in counters. Even you allow race in frontswap_succ_puts++, > > > > Don't you need some lock for > > sis->frontswap_pages++ > > sis->frontswap_pages-- > > Hmmm... OK, you've convinced me. If this counter should be one and > a race leaves it as zero, I think data corruption could result on > a swapoff or partial swapoff. And after thinking about it, I > think I also need to check for locking on frontswap_set/clear > as I don't think these bitfield modifiers are atomic. > > Thanks for pointing this out. Good catch! I will need to > play with this and test it so probably will not submit V8 until > next week as today is a vacation day for me. Silly me: Of course set_bit and clear_bit ARE atomic. I will post V8 later today with the only changes being frontswap_pages is now a type atomic_t. Thanks again for catching this, Kame! Thanks, Dan -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href