[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BB480CC.2060503@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:17:32 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
aarcange@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() in mmu_take_all_locks()
On 04/01/2010 02:13 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I don't see a reason why we can't convert those locks to
>> mutexes and get rid of the whole preempt disabled region.
>
> If someone is willing to audit all code paths to make sure these locks
> are always taken in schedulable context I agree that's a better fix.
>
From mm/rmap.c:
> /*
> * Lock ordering in mm:
> *
> * inode->i_mutex (while writing or truncating, not reading or
> faulting)
> * inode->i_alloc_sem (vmtruncate_range)
> * mm->mmap_sem
> * page->flags PG_locked (lock_page)
> * mapping->i_mmap_lock
> * anon_vma->lock
...
> *
> * (code doesn't rely on that order so it could be switched around)
> * ->tasklist_lock
> * anon_vma->lock (memory_failure, collect_procs_anon)
> * pte map lock
> */
i_mmap_lock is a spinlock, and tasklist_lock is a rwlock, so some
changes will be needed.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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