[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] __free_pages_ok oops
    Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:28:44PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
    > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Hugh Dickins wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > If this were a common case where many pages end up, yes, we'd
    > > > > need a separate special list; but it's a very rare case
    > > >
    > > > Think of a web or ftp server doing nothing but sendfile()
    > >
    > > Aren't the sendfile() pages in the page cache, and normally taken
    > > off LRU at the same time as removed from page cache, in shrink_cache?
    > > The exception being when the file is truncated while it is being sent,
    > > and buffers busy, so left behind on LRU by truncate_complete_page?
    > the buffers will hold a reference on the page. So the pagecache is
    > either in the LRU with refcount > 1, or the refcount is 1 and the page
    > is not in the lru.
    > In short Ben's patch was useless but it was faster and cleaner than what
    > we had before with the special page_cache_release, and so it was good.
    > Said it in another manner: we'll never effectively free a page that is
    > in the LRU, unless it's an anonymous page (no brainer for
    > sendpage/sendfile).

    Good to hear. But what about the weird corner-case in truncate_complete_page(),
    where a mapped page is not successfully released, and is converted into
    an anon buffercache page? It seems that a combination of sendfile
    and truncate could result in one of those pages being subject to
    final release in BH context?

    1: try_to_release_page() fails. It becomes a buffercache page.
    2: vm runs try_to_release_page() again. This time it succeeds.
    3: sendfile completes.

    > Hugh's patch is definitely valid and it's a nice bugcheck to have, it
    > should be merged IMHO (it's in a slow path), but there's no bug to fix I
    > think, the bugcheck is paranoid-in-slow-path kind of thing.

    It's looking more and more like we need that test.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.023 / U:29.868 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site