[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: page_launder() bug

On Mon, 7 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti writes:
> > I just thought about this case:
> >
> > We find a dead swap cache page, so dead_swap_page goes to 1.
> >
> > We call swap_writepage(), but in the meantime the swapin readahead code
> > got a reference on the swap map for the page.
> >
> > We write the page out because "(swap_count(page) > 1)", and we may
> > not have __GFP_IO set in the gfp_mask. Boom.

Yes. That looks a lot easier to trigger than my "slow memory
leak" schenario.

> Hmmm, can't this happen without my patch?

No. The old code would never try to write anything if __GFP_IO wasn't set,
because "launder_loop" would never become non-zero.


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 12:52    [W:0.094 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site