Re: Possible memory ordering bug in page reclaim?

[Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> Is there anything that prevents PageDirty from theoretically being
> speculatively loaded before page_count here? (see patch)
> 
> It would result in pagecache corruption in the following situation:
> 
> 1                                2
> find_get_page();
> write to page                    write_lock(tree_lock);
> SetPageDirty();                  if (page_count != 2
> put_page();                          || PageDirty())
> 
> Now I'm worried that 2 might see PageDirty *before* SetPageDirty in
                                  page->flags
> 1, and page_count *after* put_page in 1.

I think you're right.  But I'm the last person to ask
barrier/ordering questions of.  CC'ed Ben and Andrea.

Hugh

> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -511,7 +511,12 @@ static int shrink_list(struct list_head 
>  		 * PageDirty _after_ making sure that the page is freeable and
>  		 * not in use by anybody. 	(pagecache + us == 2)
>  		 */
> -		if (page_count(page) != 2 || PageDirty(page)) {
> +		if (page_count(page) != 2) {
> +			write_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> +			goto keep_locked;
> +		}
> +		smp_rmb();
> +		if (PageDirty(page)) {
>  			write_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
>  			goto keep_locked;
>  		}
-
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/