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

No. We will never call writepage() without __GFP_IO without your patch.

> Nothing stops people from getting references to the page
> between the "Page is or was in use?" test and the line
> which does "TryLockPage(page)".

I don't see any problem with people getting a reference to the page there.

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:0.184 / U:1.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site