Re: nonlinear swapping w/o pte_chains [Re: VMA_MERGING_FIXUP and patch]

From: Andrea Arcangeli
Date: Wed Mar 24 2004 - 09:48:12 EST

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 12:18:12PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> This subtlety in try_to_unmap_nonlinear_pte:
> page_map_lock(page);
> /* check that we're not in between set_pte and page_add_rmap */
> if (page_mapped(page)) {
> unmap_pte_page(page, vma, address + offset, ptep);
> Harmless, but isn't our acquisition of the page_table_lock guaranteeing
> that it cannot be in between set_pte and page_add_rmap?

I find that fragile, see the way I implemented do_anonymous_page, other
places always do page_add_rmap under the page_table_lock, but there's no
reason to require that, the swapout code already checks explicitly for
page_mapped after taking the page_map_lock, it has to do that anyways,
so I find it nicer to do it like the above and in do_anonymous_page.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at