[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f11576a1001012121o4f09d30n6dba925e74099da1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 14:21:36 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, lockdep: annotate reclaim context to zone reclaim too
2010/1/2 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> On Fri, 2010-01-01 at 18:45 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> Commit cf40bd16fd (lockdep: annotate reclaim context) introduced reclaim
>> context annotation. But it didn't annotate zone reclaim. This patch do it.
>
> And yet you didn't CC anyone involved in that patch, nor explain why you
> think it necessary, massive FAIL.
>
> The lockdep annotations cover all of kswapd() and direct reclaim through
> __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim(). So why would you need an explicit
> annotation in __zone_reclaim()?
Thanks CCing. The point is zone-reclaim doesn't use
__alloc_pages_direct_reclaim.
current call graph is
__alloc_pages_nodemask
get_page_from_freelist
zone_reclaim()
__alloc_pages_slowpath
__alloc_pages_direct_reclaim
try_to_free_pages
Actually, if zone_reclaim_mode=1, VM never call
__alloc_pages_direct_reclaim in usual VM pressure.
Thus I think zone-reclaim should be annotated explicitly too.
I know almost user don't use zone reclaim mode. but explicit
annotation doesn't have any demerit, I think.
Am I missing 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