Re: hugepage related lockdep trace.

["Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V
> <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> writes:
>>> IMHO, it's a false positive because i_mmap_mutex was held by kswapd
>>> while one in the middle of fault path could be never on kswapd context.
>>>
>>> It seems lockdep for reclaim-over-fs isn't enough smart to identify
>>> between background and direct reclaim.
>>>
>>> Wait for other's opinion.
>>
>> Is that reasoning correct ?. We may not deadlock because hugetlb pages
>> cannot be reclaimed. So the fault path in hugetlb won't end up
>> reclaiming pages from same inode. But the report is correct right ?
>>
>>
>> Looking at the hugetlb code we have in huge_pmd_share
>>
>> out:
>>         pte = (pte_t *)pmd_alloc(mm, pud, addr);
>>         mutex_unlock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
>>         return pte;
>>
>> I guess we should move that pmd_alloc outside i_mmap_mutex. Otherwise
>> that pmd_alloc can result in a reclaim which can call shrink_page_list ?
>>
> Hm, can huge pages be reclaimed, say by kswapd currently?

No we don't reclaim hugetlb pages.

-aneesh

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>