[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090514084401.0ec3432f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 08:44:01 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>, balbir@...ibm.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg: fix deadlock between lock_page_cgroup
and mapping tree_lock
On Wed, 13 May 2009 11:56:26 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 13:30:31 +0900
> Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
>
> > mapping->tree_lock can be aquired from interrupt context.
> > Then, following dead lock can occur.
> >
> > Assume "A" as a page.
> >
> > CPU0:
> > lock_page_cgroup(A)
> > interrupted
> > -> take mapping->tree_lock.
> > CPU1:
> > take mapping->tree_lock
> > -> lock_page_cgroup(A)
>
> And we didn't find out about this because lock_page_cgroup() uses
> bit_spin_lock(), and lockdep doesn't handle bit_spin_lock().
>
> It would perhaps be useful if one of you guys were to add a spinlock to
> struct page, convert lock_page_cgroup() to use that spinlock then run a
> full set of tests under lockdep, see if it can shake out any other bugs.
>
Ah, yes. Special debug option to this can be allowed ?
CONFIG_DEBUG_MEM_CGROUP_SPINLOCK or some.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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