Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 7 May 2001 22:47:40 -0300 (BRT) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: 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 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/
|  |