[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 18:13:19 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,migration: Prevent rmap_walk_[anon|ksm] seeing
the wrong VMA information
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 04:54:54PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> I'm still thinking of the ordering but one possibility would be to use a mutex
I can't take mutex in split_huge_page... so I'd need to use an other solution.
> Not yet.
Rik's patch that takes the locks in the faster path is preferable to
me, it's just simpler, you know the really "strong" long is the
page->mapping/anon_vma->lock and nothing else. You've a page, you take
that lock, you're done for that very page.
Sure that means updating vm_start/vm_pgoff then requires locking all
anon_vmas that the vma registered into, but that's conceptually
simpler and it doesn't alter the page_lock_anon_vma semantics. Now I
wonder if you said the same_anon_vma is in order, but the same_vma is
not, if it's safe to lock the same_vma in list order in anon_vma_lock,
I didn't experience problems on the anon_vma_chain branch but
anon_vma_lock disables all lockdep lock inversion checking.
--
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