[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171106121222.nnzrr4cb7s7y5h74@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 13:12:22 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>,
"yang.s@...baba-inc.com" <yang.s@...baba-inc.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: use in_atomic() in print_vma_addr()
On Mon 06-11-17 13:00:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:43:54AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Yes the comment is very much accurate.
> >
> > Which suggests that print_vma_addr might be problematic, right?
> > Shouldn't we do trylock on mmap_sem instead?
>
> Yes that's complete rubbish. trylock will get spurious failures to print
> when the lock is contended.
Yes, but I guess that it is acceptable to to not print the state under
that condition.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists