The patch titled
Subject: ksm: don't fail stable tree lookups if walking over stale stable_nodes
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
ksm-dont-fail-stable-tree-lookups-if-walking-over-stale-stable_nodes.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: ksm: don't fail stable tree lookups if walking over stale stable_nodes
The stable_nodes can become stale at any time if the underlying pages gets
freed. The stable_node gets collected and removed from the stable rbtree
if that is detected during the rbtree lookups.
Don't fail the lookup if running into stale stable_nodes, just restart the
lookup after collecting the stale stable_nodes. Otherwise the CPU spent
in the preparation stage is wasted and the lookup must be repeated at the
next loop potentially failing a second time in a second stale stable_node.
If we don't prune aggressively we delay the merging of the unstable node
candidates and at the same time we delay the freeing of the stale
stable_nodes. Keeping stale stable_nodes around wastes memory and it
can't provide any benefit.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Petr Holasek <pholasek@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/ksm.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff -puN mm/ksm.c~ksm-dont-fail-stable-tree-lookups-if-walking-over-stale-stable_nodes mm/ksm.c
--- a/mm/ksm.c~ksm-dont-fail-stable-tree-lookups-if-walking-over-stale-stable_nodes
+++ a/mm/ksm.c
@@ -1177,8 +1177,18 @@ again:
cond_resched();
stable_node = rb_entry(*new, struct stable_node, node);
tree_page = get_ksm_page(stable_node, false);
- if (!tree_page)
- return NULL;
+ if (!tree_page) {
+ /*
+ * If we walked over a stale stable_node,
+ * get_ksm_page() will call rb_erase() and it
+ * may rebalance the tree from under us. So
+ * restart the search from scratch. Returning
+ * NULL would be safe too, but we'd generate
+ * false negative insertions just because some
+ * stable_node was stale.
+ */
+ goto again;
+ }
ret = memcmp_pages(page, tree_page);
put_page(tree_page);
@@ -1254,12 +1264,14 @@ static struct stable_node *stable_tree_i
unsigned long kpfn;
struct rb_root *root;
struct rb_node **new;
- struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
+ struct rb_node *parent;
struct stable_node *stable_node;
kpfn = page_to_pfn(kpage);
nid = get_kpfn_nid(kpfn);
root = root_stable_tree + nid;
+again:
+ parent = NULL;
new = &root->rb_node;
while (*new) {
@@ -1269,8 +1281,18 @@ static struct stable_node *stable_tree_i
cond_resched();
stable_node = rb_entry(*new, struct stable_node, node);
tree_page = get_ksm_page(stable_node, false);
- if (!tree_page)
- return NULL;
+ if (!tree_page) {
+ /*
+ * If we walked over a stale stable_node,
+ * get_ksm_page() will call rb_erase() and it
+ * may rebalance the tree from under us. So
+ * restart the search from scratch. Returning
+ * NULL would be safe too, but we'd generate
+ * false negative insertions just because some
+ * stable_node was stale.
+ */
+ goto again;
+ }
ret = memcmp_pages(kpage, tree_page);
put_page(tree_page);
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx are
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
