Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750726AbWIASYB (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:24:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750732AbWIASYA (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:24:00 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:48824 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750726AbWIASX7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Sep 2006 14:23:59 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch 3/9] Guest page hinting: volatile page cache. From: Dave Hansen To: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com Cc: Andy Whitcroft , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, frankeh@watson.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <1157133841.21733.79.camel@localhost> References: <20060901110948.GD15684@skybase> <1157122667.28577.69.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1157124674.21733.13.camel@localhost> <44F8563B.3050505@shadowen.org> <1157126640.21733.43.camel@localhost> <1157127483.28577.117.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1157127943.21733.52.camel@localhost> <1157128634.28577.139.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1157129762.21733.63.camel@localhost> <1157130970.28577.150.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1157132520.21733.78.camel@localhost> <1157133780.18728.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1157133841.21733.79.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:23:44 -0700 Message-Id: <1157135024.18728.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1256 Lines: 40 On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 20:04 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 11:03 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > OK. It comes down to a race between > > > > __remove_from_page_cache()/__delete_from_swap_cache() > > > > and > > > > __page_discard() > > > > running on the same page at the same time. Right? > > Yes. OK, and there's no other workable solution to exclude each other from running at the same time than a bit in page->flags? It seems like that hashed lock (or lock in mem_map[]) we were talking about earlier might be applicable here, too. Do we ever discard pages other than ones that have just recently failed to be made stable? There seems to be a lot of if (!page_make_stable(page) { ... page_discard(page); } Some of these call sites even have mapping->page_lock held when the page_make_stable() occurs, so they would have _already_ excluded __remove_from_page_cache(). At which call sites is it not feasible to acquire mapping->page_lock? -- Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/