[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190515185257.GC2888@sultan-box.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 11:52:57 -0700
From: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@...neltoast.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ANDROID DRIVERS" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] simple_lmk: Introduce Simple Low Memory Killer for Android
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 02:32:48PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I'm confused why you did this?
Oleg said that debug_locks_off() could've been called and thus prevented
lockdep complaints about simple_lmk from appearing. To eliminate any possibility
of that, I disabled debug_locks_off().
Oleg also said that __lock_acquire() could return early if lock debugging were
somehow turned off after lockdep reported one bug. To mitigate any possibility
of that as well, I threw in the BUG_ON() for good measure.
I think at this point it's pretty clear that lockdep truly isn't complaining
about simple_lmk's locking pattern, and that lockdep's lack of complaints isn't
due to it being mysteriously turned off...
Sultan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists