lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: a patch drop request in -mm
Date
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:00:51AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Mel,
> >
> > Today, my test found following patch makes false-positive warning.
> > because, truncate can free the pages
> > although the pages are mlock()ed.
> >
> > So, I think following patch should be dropped.
> > .. or, do you think truncate should clear PG_mlock before free the page?
>
> Is there a reason that truncate cannot clear PG_mlock before freeing the
> page?

CC to Lee.
IIRC, Lee tried it at first. but after some trouble, he decided change free_hot_cold_page().
but unfortunately, I don't recall the reason ;-)

Lee, Can you recall it?


> > Can I ask your patch intention?
>
> Locked pages being freed to the page allocator were considered
> unexpected and a counter was in place to determine how often that
> situation occurred. However, I considered it unlikely that the counter
> would be noticed so the warning was put in place to catch what class of
> pages were getting freed locked inappropriately. I think a few anomolies
> have been cleared up since. Ultimately, it should have been safe to
> delete the check.

OK. it seems reasonable. so, I only hope no see linus tree output false-positive warnings.
Thus, I propse

- don't merge this patch to linus tree
- but, no drop from -mm
it be holded in mm until this issue fixed.
- I'll working on fixing this issue.

I think this is enough fair.


Hannes, I'm sorry. I haven't review your patch. I'm too busy now. please gime me more
sevaral time.





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-24 02:45    [W:0.110 / U:0.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site