Re: [PATCH V2] mm/gup: Clear the LRU flag of a page before adding to LRU batch

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

 





在 2024/7/30 17:41, David Hildenbrand 写道:
On 30.07.24 11:36, Ge Yang wrote:


在 2024/7/30 15:45, David Hildenbrand 写道:
Looking at this in more detail, I wonder if we can turn that to

if (!folio_test_clear_lru(folio))
       return;
folio_get(folio);

In all cases? The caller must hold a reference, so this should be fine.


Seems the caller madvise_free_pte_range(...), calling
folio_mark_lazyfree(...), doesn't hold a reference on folio.


If that would be the case and the folio could get freed concurrently,
the folio_get(folio) would be completely broken.

In madvise_free_pte_range() we hold the PTL, so the folio cannot get
freed concurrently.


Right.

folio_get() is only allowed when we are sure the folio cannot get freed
concurrently, because we know there is a reference that cannot go away.



When cpu0 runs folio_activate(), and cpu1 runs folio_put() concurrently,
a possible bad scenario would like:

cpu0                                           cpu1

                                             folio_put_testzero(folio)
if (!folio_test_clear_lru(folio))// Seems folio shouldn't be accessed

         return;
folio_get(folio);
                                              __folio_put(folio)
                                              __folio_clear_lru(folio)


Seems we should use folio_try_get(folio) instead of folio_get(folio).

In which case is folio_activate() called without the PTL on a mapped page or without a raised refcount?


No such case has been found. But, folio_put() can be run at anytime, so folio_activate() may access a folio with a reference count of 0.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux