[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1218112881.8625.33.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:41:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeremy@...p.org,
mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 9/7] mm: fix mm_take_all_locks() locking order
On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 13:14 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Which the locking hierarchy in mm/rmap.c confirms as 'valid'.
> >
> > Although I don't think there are any users of these two locks that don't
> > hold the mmap_sem, therefore the nesting is strictly ok, but since we
> > already have an established order, we might as well respect it.
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
> > Fix this by first taking all the mapping->i_mmap_lock instances and then
> > take all anon_vma->lock instances.
>
> Okay. I'd have preferred taking anon_vma lock after i_mmap_lock
> each time around the loop, but imagine that's just as problematic
> for lockdep as the original.
I'm a little confused as to what you mean here, are you suggesting:
for_each_vma() {
if (file)
vm_lock_mapping();
if (anon)
vm_lock_anon();
}
?
That can still create the inverse lock order due to each vma being only
of a single type, and therefore the lock order is set by the vma order,
which can be anything.
--
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