On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 19:33 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> > 
> > Now I wonder if the assertion that newpage count == 1 could be violated?
> > I don't see how.  We've just allocated and filled it and haven't
> > unlocked it yet, so we should hold the only reference.  Do you agree?
> 
> Disagree: IIRC, excellent example of the kind of assumption
> that becomes invalid with Nick's speculative page references.
> 
> Someone interested in the previous use of the page may have
> incremented the refcount, and in due course will find that
> it's got reused for something else, and will then back off.
> 

Yeah.  Kosaki-san mentioned that we'd need some rework for the
speculative page cache work.  Looks like we'll need to drop the
VM_BUG_ON().  

I need to go read up on the new invariants we can trust with the
speculative page cache.  

Thanks,
Lee

--
unsubscribe notice
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/