On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 06:51:05AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> Are you saying that the original bug report may not actually be a
> problem? Is ms->rss actually protected in _all_ of the right
> places, but people got confused because of the syntactic sugar?
>
> I don't know if all of them are ok, most are.
>
Would this do? This is a subset of Davej's patch. I also noted that
fs/{exec.c,binfmt_aout.c,binfmt_elf.c} modifies rss without holding
the lock. I think exec.c needs it, but am at a loss whether the
binfmt_* does too. The second patch below adds the lock to fs/exec.c.
Comments?
diff -ura linux-240-t10-clean/mm/memory.c linux/mm/memory.c
--- linux-240-t10-clean/mm/memory.c Sat Nov 4 23:27:17 2000
+++ linux/mm/memory.c Sun Nov 5 00:13:59 2000
@@ -369,7 +369,6 @@
address = (address + PGDIR_SIZE) & PGDIR_MASK;
dir++;
} while (address && (address < end));
- spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
/*
* Update rss for the mm_struct (not necessarily current->mm)
* Notice that rss is an unsigned long.
@@ -378,6 +377,7 @@
mm->rss -= freed;
else
mm->rss = 0;
+ spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
}
@@ -1074,7 +1074,9 @@
flush_icache_page(vma, page);
}
+ spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
mm->rss++;
+ spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
pte = mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot);
@@ -1113,7 +1115,9 @@
return -1;
clear_user_highpage(page, addr);
entry = pte_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot)));
+ spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
mm->rss++;
+ spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
flush_page_to_ram(page);
}
set_pte(page_table, entry);
@@ -1152,7 +1156,9 @@
return 0;
if (new_page == NOPAGE_OOM)
return -1;
+ spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
++mm->rss;
+ spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
/*
* This silly early PAGE_DIRTY setting removes a race
* due to the bad i386 page protection. But it's valid
diff -ura linux-240-t10-clean/mm/mmap.c linux/mm/mmap.c
--- linux-240-t10-clean/mm/mmap.c Sat Nov 4 23:27:17 2000
+++ linux/mm/mmap.c Sat Nov 4 23:53:49 2000
@@ -843,8 +843,8 @@
spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
mpnt = mm->mmap;
mm->mmap = mm->mmap_avl = mm->mmap_cache = NULL;
- spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
mm->rss = 0;
+ spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
mm->total_vm = 0;
mm->locked_vm = 0;
while (mpnt) {
diff -ura linux-240-t10-clean/mm/swapfile.c linux/mm/swapfile.c
--- linux-240-t10-clean/mm/swapfile.c Sat Nov 4 23:27:17 2000
+++ linux/mm/swapfile.c Sun Nov 5 00:19:15 2000
@@ -231,7 +231,9 @@
set_pte(dir, pte_mkdirty(mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot)));
swap_free(entry);
get_page(page);
+ spin_lock(&vma->vm_mm->page_table_lock);
++vma->vm_mm->rss;
+ spin_unlock(&vma->vm_mm->page_table_lock);
}
static inline void unuse_pmd(struct vm_area_struct * vma, pmd_t *dir,
diff -ura linux-240-t10-clean/mm/vmscan.c linux/mm/vmscan.c
--- linux-240-t10-clean/mm/vmscan.c Sat Nov 4 23:27:17 2000
+++ linux/mm/vmscan.c Sun Nov 5 00:19:48 2000
@@ -95,7 +95,9 @@
set_pte(page_table, swp_entry_to_pte(entry));
drop_pte:
UnlockPage(page);
+ spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
mm->rss--;
+ spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
flush_tlb_page(vma, address);
deactivate_page(page);
page_cache_release(page);
Second patch:
--- linux-240-t10-clean/fs/exec.c Sat Nov 4 23:27:14 2000
+++ linux/fs/exec.c Sat Nov 4 23:55:37 2000
@@ -324,7 +324,9 @@
struct page *page = bprm->page[i];
if (page) {
bprm->page[i] = NULL;
+ spin_lock(mm->page_table_lock);
current->mm->rss++;
+ spin_unlock(mm->page_table_lock);
put_dirty_page(current,page,stack_base);
}
stack_base += PAGE_SIZE;
--
Regards,
Rasmus([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Duct tape is like the force; it has a light side and a dark side, and
it holds the universe together.
-- Anonymous
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
