Re: shmem_getpage_gfp VM_BUG_ON triggered. [3.7rc2]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/26/2012 05:48 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:36:27PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Dave Jones wrote:

Machine under significant load (4gb memory used, swap usage fluctuating)
triggered this...

WARNING: at mm/shmem.c:1151 shmem_getpage_gfp+0xa5c/0xa70()
Pid: 29795, comm: trinity-child4 Not tainted 3.7.0-rc2+ #49

1148                         error = shmem_add_to_page_cache(page, mapping, index,
1149                                                 gfp, swp_to_radix_entry(swap));
1150                         /* We already confirmed swap, and make no allocation */
1151                         VM_BUG_ON(error);
1152                 }
That's very surprising.  Easy enough to handle an error there, but
of course I made it a VM_BUG_ON because it violates my assumptions:
I rather need to understand how this can be, and I've no idea.
Could it be concurrent truncation clearing out the entry between
shmem_confirm_swap() and shmem_add_to_page_cache()?  I don't see
anything preventing that.

The empty slot would not match the expected swap entry this call
passes in and the returned error would be -ENOENT.
Excellent notion, many thanks Hannes, I believe you've got it.

I've hit that truncation problem in swapoff (and commented on it
in shmem_unuse_inode), but never hit it or considered it here.
I think of the page lock as holding it stable, but truncation's
free_swap_and_cache only does a trylock on the swapcache page,
so we're not secured against that possibility.

Hi Hugh,

Even though free_swap_and_cache only does a trylock on the swapcache page, but it doens't call delete_from_swap_cache and the associated entry should still be there, I am interested in what you have already introduce to protect it?


So I'd like to change it to VM_BUG_ON(error && error != -ENOENT),
but there's a little tidying up to do in the -ENOENT case, which

Do you mean radix_tree_insert will return -ENOENT if the associated entry is not present? Why I can't find this return value in the function radix_tree_insert?

needs more thought.  A delete_from_swap_cache(page) - though we
can be lazy and leave that to reclaim for such a rare occurrence -
and probably a mem_cgroup uncharge; but the memcg hooks are always
the hardest to get right, I'll have think about that one carefully.

Hugh

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]