On 27 Dec 2000, Christoph Rohland wrote:
> BTW: The generic swapoff path itself has still races if a process is
> paging in a page which is just freed on swap by try_to_unuse. It gives
> 'VM: bad swap entries' and worse. But this is not shmem
> specific. Marcelo would you like to look into this?
Sure.
Look at this comment on try_to_unuse():
swap_device_lock(si);
for (i = 1; i < si->max ; i++) {
if (si->swap_map[i] > 0 && si->swap_map[i] != SWAP_MAP_BAD) {
/*
* Prevent swaphandle from being completely
* unused by swap_free while we are trying
* to read in the page - this prevents warning
* messages from rw_swap_page_base.
*/
if (si->swap_map[i] != SWAP_MAP_MAX)
si->swap_map[i]++;
swap_device_unlock(si);
goto found_entry;
...
I think that incrementing the swap entry count will not allow swap from
removing the swap entry (as the comment says)
What I'm missing here?
Thanks
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
