Re: a patch drop request in -mm

From: Lee Schermerhorn
Date: Wed Sep 23 2009 - 21:47:24 EST


On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 09:40 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:00:51AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > Mel,
> > >
> > > Today, my test found following patch makes false-positive warning.
> > > because, truncate can free the pages
> > > although the pages are mlock()ed.
> > >
> > > So, I think following patch should be dropped.
> > > .. or, do you think truncate should clear PG_mlock before free the page?
> >
> > Is there a reason that truncate cannot clear PG_mlock before freeing the
> > page?
>
> CC to Lee.
> IIRC, Lee tried it at first. but after some trouble, he decided change free_hot_cold_page().
> but unfortunately, I don't recall the reason ;-)
>
> Lee, Can you recall it?

Well, truncation does call clear_page_mlock() for this purpose. This
should always succeed in clearing PG_mlock, altho' I suppose it could be
set from somewhere else after that? Looking at the 2.6.31 sources, I
see that there is a call to page_cache_release() in
truncate_inode_pages_range() that doesn't have a corresponding
clear_page_mlock() associated with it. Perhaps we missed this one, or
it's been added since w/o munlocking the page.

If you can eliminate the false positive, I think it would be good to
keep the warning in place. There might be other "leaks" of mlocked
pages that aren't as benign as this. But, keeping it in -mm until it's
sorted out sound reasonable to me


>
>
> > > Can I ask your patch intention?
> >
> > Locked pages being freed to the page allocator were considered
> > unexpected and a counter was in place to determine how often that
> > situation occurred. However, I considered it unlikely that the counter
> > would be noticed so the warning was put in place to catch what class of
> > pages were getting freed locked inappropriately. I think a few anomolies
> > have been cleared up since. Ultimately, it should have been safe to
> > delete the check.
>
> OK. it seems reasonable. so, I only hope no see linus tree output false-positive warnings.
> Thus, I propse
>
> - don't merge this patch to linus tree
> - but, no drop from -mm
> it be holded in mm until this issue fixed.
> - I'll working on fixing this issue.
>
> I think this is enough fair.
>
>
> Hannes, I'm sorry. I haven't review your patch. I'm too busy now. please gime me more
> sevaral time.
>
>
>

--
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/