lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH -rt] avoid deadlock related with PG_nonewrefs and swap_lock
From
Date
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 11:24 -0700, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I've updated the patch. Could you please review it?
>
> I'm also thinking that it can be in the mainline because it makes
> the lock period shorter, correct?

Possibly yeah, Nick, Hugh?

> ---
> From: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com>
>
> There is a deadlock scenario; remove_mapping() vs free_swap_and_cache().
> remove_mapping() turns PG_nonewrefs bit on, then locks swap_lock.
> free_swap_and_cache() locks swap_lock, then wait to turn PG_nonewrefs bit
> off in find_get_page().
>
> swap_lock can be unlocked before calling find_get_page().
>
> In remove_exclusive_swap_page(), there is similar lock sequence;
> swap_lock, then PG_nonewrefs bit. swap_lock can be unlocked before
> turning PG_nonewrefs bit on.

I worry about this, Once we free the swap entry with swap_entry_free(),
and drop the swap_lock, another task is basically free to re-use that
swap location and try to insert another page in that same spot in
add_to_swap() - read_swap_cache_async() can't race because it would mean
it still has a swap entry pinned.

However, add_to_swap() can already handle the race, because it used to
race against read_swap_cache_async(). It also swap_free()s the entry so
as to not leak entries. So I think this is indeed correct.

[ I ought to find some time to port the concurrent page-cache patches on
top of Nick's latest lockless series, Hugh's suggestion makes the
speculative get much nicer. ]

> Signed-off-by: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com>

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>

> ---
> mm/swapfile.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> index 5036b70..6fbc77e 100644
> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> @@ -366,6 +366,7 @@ int remove_exclusive_swap_page(struct page *page)
> /* Is the only swap cache user the cache itself? */
> retval = 0;
> if (p->swap_map[swp_offset(entry)] == 1) {
> + spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> /* Recheck the page count with the swapcache lock held.. */
> lock_page_ref_irq(page);
> if ((page_count(page) == 2) && !PageWriteback(page)) {
> @@ -374,8 +375,8 @@ int remove_exclusive_swap_page(struct page *page)
> retval = 1;
> }
> unlock_page_ref_irq(page);
> - }
> - spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> + } else
> + spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
>
> if (retval) {
> swap_free(entry);
> @@ -400,13 +401,14 @@ void free_swap_and_cache(swp_entry_t entry)
> p = swap_info_get(entry);
> if (p) {
> if (swap_entry_free(p, swp_offset(entry)) == 1) {
> + spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> page = find_get_page(&swapper_space, entry.val);
> if (page && unlikely(TestSetPageLocked(page))) {
> page_cache_release(page);
> page = NULL;
> }
> - }
> - spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> + } else
> + spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> }
> if (page) {
> int one_user;



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-26 10:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans