On Fri, 20 Dec 2013, Dave Chinner wrote:
> If count_vm_events requires irqs to be disabled to behave correctly,
> then putting __count_vm_events under a spin lock is still not irq
> safe. Either way, this isn't in a performance critical path, so I'd
> much prefer the simpler, safer option be used rather than leave a
> landmine for other unsuspecting developers.
Subject: [fs] Use safe counter increment operations
The counter increment in inode_lru_isolate is happening with
preemption on using __count_vm_events making counter
increment races possible.
Use count_vm_events instead.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <c...@linux.com>
Index: linux/fs/inode.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/fs/inode.c 2013-12-20 12:02:14.409583380 -0600
+++ linux/fs/inode.c 2013-12-20 12:02:14.409583380 -0600
@@ -722,9 +722,9 @@ inode_lru_isolate(struct list_head *item
unsigned long reap;
reap = invalidate_mapping_pages(&inode->i_data, 0, -1);
if (current_is_kswapd())
- __count_vm_events(KSWAPD_INODESTEAL, reap);
+ count_vm_events(KSWAPD_INODESTEAL, reap);
else
- __count_vm_events(PGINODESTEAL, reap);
+ count_vm_events(PGINODESTEAL, reap);
if (current->reclaim_state)
current->reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab += reap;
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
