Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 May 2001 19:26:55 -0300 (BRT) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: page_launder() bug |
| |
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 May 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > So the "dead_swap_page" logic is _not_ buggy and you are full of shit when > > telling Alan to revert the change. (sorry, I could not avoid this one) > > Well, the problem is that the patch _is_ buggy. > > swap_writepage() does it right. And dead_swap_page does it wrong. It > doesn't look at the swap counts, for one thing.
So lets fix it and make it look for the swap counts.
> The patch should be reverted. The fact that other parts of the system do > it _right_ is not an argument for mm/vmscan.c to do it wrong.
My point is that its _ok_ for us to check if the page is a dead swap cache page _without_ the lock since writepage() will recheck again with the page _locked_. Quoting you two messages back:
"But it is important to re-calculate the deadness after getting the lock. Before, it was just an informed guess. After the lock, it is knowledge."
See ?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |