Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: fix bogus VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() in isolate_lru_page()
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:40:02 +0100
Message-ID: <qXnO2-4aB-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <qXmIi-3oo-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qXmIj-3oo-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <qXnEm-45e-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 23
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Xref: csiph.com linux.kernel:1323175

On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 03:24:46PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 01-02-16 16:26:08, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > We don't care if there's a tail pages which is not on LRU. We are not
> > going to isolate them anyway.
> 
> yes we are not going to isolate them but calling this function on a
> tail page is wrong in principle, no? PageLRU check is racy outside of
> lru_lock so what if we are racing here. I know, highly unlikely but not
> impossible. So I am not really sure this is an improvement. When would
> we hit this VM_BUG_ON and it wouldn't be a bug or at least suspicious
> usage?

Yes, there is no point in calling isolate_lru_page() for tail pages, but
we do this anyway -- see the second patch.

And we need to validate all drivers, that they don't forget to set VM_IO
or make vma_migratable() return false in other way.

Alternative approach would be to downgrate the VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() to
WARN_ONCE_ON(). This way we would have chance to catch bad callers.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov