Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/5] add SWAP_HAS_CACHE flag to swap_map

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

On Wed, 27 May 2009 13:02:46 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:

> > @@ -1067,21 +1113,21 @@ static int try_to_unuse(unsigned int typ
> >  		}
> >  
> >  		/*
> > -		 * How could swap count reach 0x7fff when the maximum
> > -		 * pid is 0x7fff, and there's no way to repeat a swap
> > -		 * page within an mm (except in shmem, where it's the
> > -		 * shared object which takes the reference count)?
> > -		 * We believe SWAP_MAP_MAX cannot occur in Linux 2.4.
> > -		 *
> > +		 * How could swap count reach 0x7ffe ?
> > +		 * There's no way to repeat a swap page within an mm
> > +		 * (except in shmem, where it's the shared object which takes
> > +		 * the reference count)?
> > +		 * We believe SWAP_MAP_MAX cannot occur.(if occur, unsigned
> > +		 * short is too small....)
> >  		 * If that's wrong, then we should worry more about
> >  		 * exit_mmap() and do_munmap() cases described above:
> >  		 * we might be resetting SWAP_MAP_MAX too early here.
> >  		 * We know "Undead"s can happen, they're okay, so don't
> >  		 * report them; but do report if we reset SWAP_MAP_MAX.
> >  		 */
> > -		if (*swap_map == SWAP_MAP_MAX) {
> > +		if (swap_count(*swap_map) == SWAP_MAP_MAX) {
> >  			spin_lock(&swap_lock);
> > -			*swap_map = 1;
> > +			*swap_map = make_swap_count(0, 1);
> Can we assume the entry has SWAP_HAS_CACHE here ?
> Shouldn't we check PageSwapCache beforehand ?
> 

IIUC, in this try_to_unuse code, the page is added to swap cache and locked
before reaches here. But....ah,ok, unuse_mm() may release lock_page() before
reach here. Then...

if (PageSwapCache(page) && swap_count(*swap_map) == SWAP_MAP_MAX)

is right ? (maybe original code, set to "1" is also buggy.)

Thanks,
-Kame


> >  			spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> >  			reset_overflow = 1;
> >  		}
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Daisuke Nishimura.
>