[patch] Re: weird memory related problems, negative memory usage or fake memory usage?

[Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 01:11:16AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> possibly yes but maybe not, dunno right now or I would be just sending
> the fix inline in this email :).  As said I never seen it before Ben's
> tlb shootdown was merged into mainline, but again I repeat it can
> _really_ be just an unlucky coincidence. But I guess because of this
> coincidence the tlb shootdown will be the first things I will audit
> tomorrow.

This should fix it.

		-ben

... v2.4.10-rss.diff ...
diff -urN v2.4.10/mm/memory.c foo/mm/memory.c
--- v2.4.10/mm/memory.c	Mon Sep 24 02:16:05 2001
+++ foo/mm/memory.c	Tue Sep 25 20:03:04 2001
@@ -319,7 +319,9 @@
 		if (pte_none(pte))
 			continue;
 		if (pte_present(pte)) {
-			freed ++;
+			struct page *page = pte_page(pte);
+			if (!PageReserved(page) && VALID_PAGE(page))
+				freed ++;
 			/* This will eventually call __free_pte on the pte. */
 			tlb_remove_page(tlb, ptep, address + offset);
 		} else {