From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo....@lge.com> commit be1aa03b973c7dcdc576f3503f7a60429825c35d upstream.
It is odd to drop the spinlock when we scan (SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX - 1) th pfn page. This may results in below situation while isolating migratepage. 1. try isolate 0x0 ~ 0x200 pfn pages. 2. When low_pfn is 0x1ff, ((low_pfn+1) % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) == 0, so drop the spinlock. 3. Then, to complete isolating, retry to aquire the lock. I think that it is better to use SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX th pfn for checking the criteria about dropping the lock. This has no harm 0x0 pfn, because, at this time, locked variable would be false. Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo....@lge.com> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vba...@suse.cz> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> Cc: Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> --- mm/compaction.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c index 6718a91..4730a2f 100644 --- a/mm/compaction.c +++ b/mm/compaction.c @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ isolate_migratepages_range(struct zone *zone, struct compact_control *cc, cond_resched(); for (; low_pfn < end_pfn; low_pfn++) { /* give a chance to irqs before checking need_resched() */ - if (locked && !((low_pfn+1) % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX)) { + if (locked && !(low_pfn % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX)) { if (should_release_lock(&zone->lru_lock)) { spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lru_lock, flags); locked = false; -- 1.8.4.5 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html