Re: [PATCHv4 06/39] thp, mm: avoid PageUnevictable on active/inactivelru lists

[Dave Hansen]

On 05/11/2013 06:23 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> active/inactive lru lists can contain unevicable pages (i.e. ramfs pages
> that have been placed on the LRU lists when first allocated), but these
> pages must not have PageUnevictable set - otherwise shrink_active_list
> goes crazy:
> 
> kernel BUG at /home/space/kas/git/public/linux-next/mm/vmscan.c:1122!
> invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP
> CPU 0
> Pid: 293, comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 3.8.0-rc6-next-20130202+ #531
> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff81110478>]  [<ffffffff81110478>] isolate_lru_pages.isra.61+0x138/0x260
> RSP: 0000:ffff8800796d9b28  EFLAGS: 00010082'
...

I'd much rather see a code snippet and description the BUG_ON() than a
register and stack dump.  That line number is wrong already. ;)

> For lru_add_page_tail(), it means we should not set PageUnevictable()
> for tail pages unless we're sure that it will go to LRU_UNEVICTABLE.
> Let's just copy PG_active and PG_unevictable from head page in
> __split_huge_page_refcount(), it will simplify lru_add_page_tail().
> 
> This will fix one more bug in lru_add_page_tail():
> if page_evictable(page_tail) is false and PageLRU(page) is true, page_tail
> will go to the same lru as page, but nobody cares to sync page_tail
> active/inactive state with page. So we can end up with inactive page on
> active lru.
> The patch will fix it as well since we copy PG_active from head page.

This all seems good, and if it fixes a bug, it should really get merged
as it stands.  Have you been actually able to trigger that bug in any
way in practice?

Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/