From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sat,  1 Mar 2014 17:52:24 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <a9deddc7a5cba583c9dd4dec69997f06@mikro.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <25a93ad0f926053188598ba1ba6c69be@felloff.net>
References: <25a93ad0f926053188598ba1ba6c69be@felloff.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] imagereclaim()
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c04a6ac2-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sat Mar  1 17:24:03 EST 2014, cinap_lenrek@felloff.net wrote:
> not sure what you mean. the page passed to duppage() is not
> on the freelist. and the new page duppage() allocates and
> caches is chained on the tail as far as i can see. so
> the invariant required by imagereclaim() holds. or are
> you refering to a different problem?

duppage races with itself, potentially putting thousands of pages
on the free list because for whatever reason it puts the new page
back, not the old one.

but it's hard to see the carbuncle for the pimples.

- erik