Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:19:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:19:09 -0500 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:55314 "HELO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:19:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 18:01:10 -0200 (BRST) From: Marcelo Tosatti To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Simon Kirby , Andrea Arcangeli , lkml , Rik van Riel Subject: Re: VM-related Oops: 2.4.15pre1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Simon Kirby wrote: > > > > So, uh, any idea why the server is hitting the page->mapping BUG() thing > > in the first place? :) > > No. > > I suspect that your earlier oopses left something in a stale state - this > is the same machine that you've reported others oopses for, no? Linus, I was talking with Rik today about 2.5 VM plans and we end up talking about the order of the pagecache_lock and pagemap_lru_lock. He ended up showing me add_to_page_cache(), which now looks like: We ended up talking about the possibility of a reschedule (IRQ) happening before after the "spin_unlock(pagecache_lock)" but before the "lru_cache_add()". I haven't investigated the issue yet... But isn't that possible ? void add_to_page_cache(struct page * page, struct address_space * mapping, unsigned long offset) { spin_lock(&pagecache_lock); __add_to_page_cache(page, mapping, offset, page_hash(mapping, offset)); spin_unlock(&pagecache_lock); lru_cache_add(page); } - 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/