On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:27:29AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > > > I still see the swap_free messages with this applied. > > > > > Decremented? > > It actually seems worse, seems I can trigger it even easier now, as if > there's a leak. > If leak, add missing swap_free() for another case of reused page. --- a/mm/memory.c Wed Aug 7 16:29:34 2013 +++ b/mm/memory.c Fri Aug 23 16:46:06 2013 @@ -2655,6 +2655,7 @@ static int do_wp_page(struct mm_struct * */ page_move_anon_rmap(old_page, vma, address); unlock_page(old_page); + swap_free(pte_to_swp_entry(orig_pte)); goto reuse; } unlock_page(old_page); --