[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100910193307.C97B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:33:32 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] vmscan: Synchrounous lumpy reclaim use lock_page() instead trylock_page()
> Afaik, detailed rule is,
>
> o kswapd can call lock_page() because they never take page lock outside vmscan
s/lock_page()/lock_page_nosync()/
> o if try_lock() is successed, we can call lock_page_nosync() against its page after unlock.
> because the task have gurantee of no lock taken.
> o otherwise, direct reclaimer can't call lock_page(). the task may have a lock already.
>
> I think.
>
>
> > I did not
> > think of an obvious example of when this would happen. Similarly,
> > deadlock situations with mmap_sem shouldn't happen unless multiple page
> > locks are being taken.
> >
> > (prepares to feel foolish)
> >
> > What did I miss?
>
>
>
>
>
--
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