Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/5] add SWAP_HAS_CACHE flag to swap_map

From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Date: Wed May 27 2009 - 21:06:49 EST


On Thu, 28 May 2009 09:41:57 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > @@ -1969,17 +2017,33 @@ int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry)
> > offset = swp_offset(entry);
> >
> > spin_lock(&swap_lock);
> > - if (offset < p->max && p->swap_map[offset]) {
> > - if (p->swap_map[offset] < SWAP_MAP_MAX - 1) {
> > - p->swap_map[offset]++;
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(offset >= p->max))
> > + goto unlock_out;
> > +
> > + count = swap_count(p->swap_map[offset]);
> > + has_cache = swap_has_cache(p->swap_map[offset]);
> > + if (cache) {
> > + /* set SWAP_HAS_CACHE if there is no cache and entry is used */
> > + if (!has_cache && count) {
> Should we check !has_cache here ?
I added !has_cache to return 0 in racy case.

>
> Concurrent read_swap_cache_async() might have set SWAP_HAS_CACHE, but not have added
> a page to swap cache yet when find_get_page() was called.
yes.

> add_to_swap_cache() would handle the race of concurrent read_swap_cache_async(),
> but considering more, swapcache_free() at the end of the loop might dangerous in this case...

I can't catch what you mean.

I think swapcache_prepare() returns 0 in racy case and no add_to_swap_cache() happens.
wrong ?

> So I think it should be like:
>
> read_swap_cache_async()
> :
> valid = swapcache_prepare(entry);
> if (!valid)
> break;
> if (valid == -EAGAIN);
> continue;
>
> to let the context that succeeded in swapcache_prepare() do add_to_swap_cache().
>

What you reccomend is code like this ?

==
ret = swapcache_prapare(entry);
if (ret == -ENOENT)
break; /* unused swap entry */
if (ret == -EBUSY)
continue; /* to call find_get_page() again */
==

-Kame





--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/