On 12/3/20 12:36 PM, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > The scenario on which "Free swap -4kB" happens in my system, which is caused by > get_swap_page_of_type or get_swap_pages racing with show_mem. Remove the race > here. > > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/swapfile.c | 7 +++---- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c > index cf63b5f..13201b6 100644 > --- a/mm/swapfile.c > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c > @@ -974,6 +974,8 @@ int get_swap_pages(int n_goal, swp_entry_t swp_entries[], int entry_size) > /* Only single cluster request supported */ > WARN_ON_ONCE(n_goal > 1 && size == SWAPFILE_CLUSTER); > > + spin_lock(&swap_avail_lock); > + > avail_pgs = atomic_long_read(&nr_swap_pages) / size; > if (avail_pgs <= 0) > goto noswap; This goto will leave with the spin lock locked, so that's a bug. > @@ -986,8 +988,6 @@ int get_swap_pages(int n_goal, swp_entry_t swp_entries[], int entry_size) > > atomic_long_sub(n_goal * size, &nr_swap_pages); > > - spin_lock(&swap_avail_lock); > - Is the problem that while we adjust n_goal with a min3(..., avail_pgs), somebody else can decrease nr_swap_pages in the meanwhile and then we underflow? If yes, the spin lock won't eliminate all such cases it seems, as e.g. get_swap_page_of_type isn't done under the same lock, AFAIK. > start_over: > node = numa_node_id(); > plist_for_each_entry_safe(si, next, &swap_avail_heads[node], avail_lists[node]) { > @@ -1061,14 +1061,13 @@ swp_entry_t get_swap_page_of_type(int type) > > spin_lock(&si->lock); > if (si->flags & SWP_WRITEOK) { > - atomic_long_dec(&nr_swap_pages); > /* This is called for allocating swap entry, not cache */ > offset = scan_swap_map(si, 1); > if (offset) { > + atomic_long_dec(&nr_swap_pages); > spin_unlock(&si->lock); > return swp_entry(type, offset); > } > - atomic_long_inc(&nr_swap_pages); This hunk looks safer, unless I miss something. Did you check if it's enough to prevent the negative values on your systems? > } > spin_unlock(&si->lock); > fail: >