[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.4.10pre VM changes: Potential race condition on swap code
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > It may be made more likely by my swapoff changes (not bumping swap
> > count in valid_swaphandles), but it's not been introduced by those
> > changes. Though usually swapin_readahead/valid_swaphandles covers
> > (includes) the particular swap entry which do_swap_page actually
> > wants to bring in, under pressure that's not always so, and then
> > the race you outline can occur with the "bare" read_swap_cache_async
> > for which there was no bumping. Furthermore, you can play your
> > scenario with valid_swaphandles through to add_to_swap_cache on CPU0
> > interposed between the get_swap_page and add_to_swap_cache on CPU1
> > (if interrupt on CPU1 diverts it).
> I don't think so. A "bare" read_swap_cache_async() call only happens on
> swap entries which already have additional references. That is, its
> guaranteed that a "bare" read_swap_cache_async() call only happens for
> swap map entries which already have a reference, so we're guaranteed that
> it cannot be reused.

Almost agreed, but there may be a long interval between when that reference
was observed in the page table, and when read_swap_cache_async upon it is
actually performed (waiting for BKL, waiting to allocate pages for prior
swapin_readahead). In that interval the reference can be removed:
certainly by swapoff, certainly by vm_swap_full removal, anything else?
That's why the pte_same tests were added into do_swap_page in 2.4.8.


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 13:03    [W:0.042 / U:8.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site