From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758107Ab0EESSH (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 May 2010 14:18:07 -0400 Received: from gir.skynet.ie ([193.1.99.77]:39081 "EHLO gir.skynet.ie" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757724Ab0EESRr (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 May 2010 14:17:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 19:17:28 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , LKML , Minchan Kim , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Christoph Lameter , Andrea Arcangeli , Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,migration: Prevent rmap_walk_[anon|ksm] seeing the wrong VMA information Message-ID: <20100505181728.GW20979@csn.ul.ie> References: <1273065281-13334-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1273065281-13334-2-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20100505145620.GP20979@csn.ul.ie> <20100505175311.GU20979@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 11:02:25AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 May 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > If the same_vma list is properly ordered then maybe something like the > > following is allowed? > > Heh. This is the same logic I just sent out. However: > > > + anon_vma = page_rmapping(page); > > + if (!anon_vma) > > + return NULL; > > + > > + spin_lock(&anon_vma->lock); > > RCU should guarantee that this spin_lock() is valid, but: > > > + /* > > + * Get the oldest anon_vma on the list by depending on the ordering > > + * of the same_vma list setup by __page_set_anon_rmap > > + */ > > + avc = list_entry(&anon_vma->head, struct anon_vma_chain, same_anon_vma); > > We're not guaranteed that the 'anon_vma->head' list is non-empty. > > Somebody could have freed the list and the anon_vma and we have a stale > 'page->anon_vma' (that has just not been _released_ yet). > Ahh, fair point. I asked in the other mail was the empty list check necessary - it is. Thanks > And shouldn't that be 'list_first_entry'? Or &anon_vma->head.next? > Should have been list_first_entry. > How did that line actually work for you? Or was it just a "it boots", but > no actual testing of the rmap walk? > It's currently running a migration-related stress test without any deadlocks or lockdep wobbly so far. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab