[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.5.62-mm3 - no X for me
Dave McCracken <> wrote:
> --On Tuesday, February 25, 2003 01:55:37 -0800 Andrew Morton
> <> wrote:
> > Ah, thank you.
> >
> > kernel BUG at mm/rmap.c:248!
> >
> > The fickle finger of fate points McCrackenwards.
> Yep. He tripped over my sanity check that pages not marked anon actually
> have a real mapping pointer. Apparently X allocates a page that should be
> marked anon but isn't.

Wonder where that came from?

> My main reason for adding the anon flag was to prove to myself that the
> mapping pointer can be trusted. Apparently it can, generally, but it looks
> like I haven't successfully tracked down all the places that should set it.
> It looks like anon pages can come from random sources, so it might be an
> impossible task to find them all.

Yes, the debug check is important at this time.

> I know you said you like the idea of having the flag, but I think the
> cleanest fix would be to change the check from
> if (PageAnon(page))
> to
> if (page->mapping && !PageSwapCache(page))

Well I'm not particularly overjoyed by the flag. What I liked was that we
have a place where we can implement anonymous page counting, so we get
another interesting number in /proc/meminfo. Minor point.

> Or I could set the anon flag based on that test. I know page flags are
> getting scarce, so I'm leaning toward removing the flag entirely.
> What would you recommend?

Keep the flag for now, find the escaped page under X, remove the flag later?

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 13:33    [W:0.059 / U:2.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site