[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1205301857170.25774@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 18:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
dhillf@...il.com, mhocko@...e.cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V7 05/14] hugetlb: avoid taking i_mmap_mutex in
unmap_single_vma() for hugetlb
On Wed, 30 May 2012, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> i_mmap_mutex lock was added in unmap_single_vma by 502717f4e ("hugetlb:
> fix linked list corruption in unmap_hugepage_range()") but we don't use
> page->lru in unmap_hugepage_range any more. Also the lock was taken
> higher up in the stack in some code path. That would result in deadlock.
>
> unmap_mapping_range (i_mmap_mutex)
> -> unmap_mapping_range_tree
> -> unmap_mapping_range_vma
> -> zap_page_range_single
> -> unmap_single_vma
> -> unmap_hugepage_range (i_mmap_mutex)
>
You should be able to show this with lockdep?
> For shared pagetable support for huge pages, since pagetable pages are ref
> counted we don't need any lock during huge_pmd_unshare. We do take
> i_mmap_mutex in huge_pmd_share while walking the vma_prio_tree in mapping.
> (39dde65c9940c97f ("shared page table for hugetlb page")).
>
I think this should be folded into patch 4, the code you're removing here
is just added in that function unnecessarily.
--
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