From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com (Kanoj Sarcar) Message-Id: <200004090040.RAA49059@google.engr.sgi.com> Subject: Re: [patch] take 2 Re: PG_swap_entry bug in recent kernels Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 17:40:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: from "Andrea Arcangeli" at Apr 09, 2000 01:39:10 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Ben LaHaise , riel@nl.linux.org, Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > > On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Kanoj Sarcar wrote: > > >As I mentioned before, have you stress tested this to make sure grabbing > > I have stress tested the whole thing (also a few minutes ago to check the > latest patch) but it never locked up so we have to think about it. Okay good. > > Could you explain why you think it's the inverse lock ordering? Let me see, if I can come up with something, I will let you know. If it survives stress testing, it probably is not inverse locking. Btw, I am looking at your patch with message id , that does not seem to be holding vmlist/pagetable lock in the swapdelete code (at least at first blush). That was partly why I wanted to know what fixes are in your patch ... Note: I prefer being able to hold mmap_sem in the swapdelete path, that will provide protection against fork/exit races too. I will try to port over my version of the patch, and list the problems it fixes ... Kanoj -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/