[Devel] Re: [RFC] [-mm PATCH] Memory controller fix swap charging context in unuse_pte()

Balbir Singh balbir at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mon Oct 15 10:27:14 PDT 2007


Hugh Dickins wrote:
> 
> --- 2.6.23-rc8-mm2/mm/swapfile.c	2007-09-27 12:03:36.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux/mm/swapfile.c	2007-10-07 14:33:05.000000000 +0100
> @@ -507,11 +507,23 @@ unsigned int count_swap_pages(int type, 
>   * just let do_wp_page work it out if a write is requested later - to
>   * force COW, vm_page_prot omits write permission from any private vma.
>   */
> -static int unuse_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pte_t *pte,
> +static int unuse_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>  		unsigned long addr, swp_entry_t entry, struct page *page)
>  {
> +	spinlock_t *ptl;
> +	pte_t *pte;
> +	int ret = 1;
> +
>  	if (mem_cgroup_charge(page, vma->vm_mm, GFP_KERNEL))
> -		return -ENOMEM;
> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> +	if (unlikely(!pte_same(*pte, swp_entry_to_pte(entry)))) {
> +		if (ret > 0)
> +			mem_cgroup_uncharge_page(page);
> +		ret = 0;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> 
>  	inc_mm_counter(vma->vm_mm, anon_rss);
>  	get_page(page);
> @@ -524,7 +536,9 @@ static int unuse_pte(struct vm_area_stru
>  	 * immediately swapped out again after swapon.
>  	 */
>  	activate_page(page);
> -	return 1;
> +out:
> +	pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);
> +	return ret;
>  }
> 
>  static int unuse_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> @@ -533,21 +547,33 @@ static int unuse_pte_range(struct vm_are
>  {
>  	pte_t swp_pte = swp_entry_to_pte(entry);
>  	pte_t *pte;
> -	spinlock_t *ptl;
>  	int ret = 0;
> 
> -	pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> +	/*
> +	 * We don't actually need pte lock while scanning for swp_pte:
> +	 * since we hold page lock, swp_pte cannot be inserted into or
> +	 * removed from a page table while we're scanning; but on some
> +	 * architectures (e.g. i386 with PAE) we might catch a glimpse
> +	 * of unmatched parts which look like swp_pte, so unuse_pte
> +	 * must recheck under pte lock.  Scanning without the lock
> +	 * is preemptible if CONFIG_PREEMPT without CONFIG_HIGHPTE.
> +	 */
> +	pte = pte_offset_map(pmd, addr);
>  	do {
>  		/*
>  		 * swapoff spends a _lot_ of time in this loop!
>  		 * Test inline before going to call unuse_pte.
>  		 */
>  		if (unlikely(pte_same(*pte, swp_pte))) {
> -			ret = unuse_pte(vma, pte++, addr, entry, page);
> -			break;
> +			pte_unmap(pte);
> +			ret = unuse_pte(vma, pmd, addr, entry, page);
> +			if (ret)
> +				goto out;
> +			pte = pte_offset_map(pmd, addr);
>  		}
>  	} while (pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != end);
> -	pte_unmap_unlock(pte - 1, ptl);
> +	pte_unmap(pte - 1);
> +out:
>  	return ret;
>  }
> 

I tested this patch and it seems to be working fine. I tried swapoff -a
in the middle of tests consuming swap. Not 100% rigorous, but a good
test nevertheless.

Tested-by: Balbir Singh <balbir at linux.vnet.ibm.com>

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers




More information about the Devel mailing list