On Tue 15-07-14 13:34:39, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 06:07:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 15-07-14 11:55:37, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 04:40:45PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > ... > > > > diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c > > > > index a98f48626359..3074210f245d 100644 > > > > --- a/mm/swap.c > > > > +++ b/mm/swap.c > > > > @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ static void __page_cache_release(struct page *page) > > > > del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, page_off_lru(page)); > > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lru_lock, flags); > > > > } > > > > + mem_cgroup_uncharge(page); > > > > } > > > > > > > > static void __put_single_page(struct page *page) > > > > > > This seems to cause a list breakage in hstate->hugepage_activelist > > > when freeing a hugetlbfs page. > > > > This looks like a fall out from > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=140475936311294&w=2 > > > > I didn't get to review this one but the easiest fix seems to be check > > HugePage and do not call uncharge. > > Yes, that makes sense. I'm also moving the uncharge call into > __put_single_page() and __put_compound_page() so that PageHuge(), a > function call, only needs to be checked for compound pages. Hmm, there doesn't seem to be any point in calling __page_cache_release for HugePage as well. So it should be sufficient that __put_compound_page doesn't call __page_cache_release for PageHuge and uncharge can stay there. Maybe this would be slightly better... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>