[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 22:43:48 +0900
From: MinChan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [BUG??] Deadlock between kswapd and sys_inotify_add_watch(lockdep
report)
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 20:56 +0900, MinChan Kim wrote:
>> Thanks for kind explanation. :)
>> Unfortunately, I still have a question. :(
>
> No problem :-)
>
>> > > I think if reclaim context which have GFP_FS already have lock A and then
>> > > do pageout, if writepage need the lock A, we have to catch such a case.
>> > > I thought Nick's patch's goal catchs such a case.
>> >
>> > Correct, it exactly does that.
>>
>> But, I think such a case can be caught by lockdep of recursive detection
>> which is existed long time ago by making you.
>
> (Ingo wrote that code)
>
>> what's difference Nick's patch and recursive lockdep ?
>
> Very good question indeed. Every time I started to write an answer I
> realize its wrong.
>
> The below is half the answer:
>
> /*
> * Check whether we are holding such a class already.
> *
> * (Note that this has to be done separately, because the graph cannot
> * detect such classes of deadlocks.)
> *
> * Returns: 0 on deadlock detected, 1 on OK, 2 on recursive read
> */
> static int
> check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next,
> struct lockdep_map *next_instance, int read)
>
> So in order for the reclaim report to trigger we have to actually hit
> that code path that has the recursion in it. The reclaim context
> annotation by Nick ensures we detect such cases without having to do
> that.
In my case and Nick's patch's example hit code path that has the
recursion in it.
then reported it.
Do I miss something ?
> The second half, to which I cannot seem to get a decent answer to atm,
> is why the recursion case isn't detected by the graph.
>
>
>
>
--
Kinds regards,
MinChan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists