From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] vmscan: Synchrounous lumpy reclaim use lock_page() instead trylock_page() Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:33:32 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20100910193307.C97B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20100909092203.GL29263@csn.ul.ie> <20100909182649.C94F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Mel Gorman , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel List , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , Minchan Kim , Wu Fengguang , Andrea Arcangeli , Dave Chinner , Chris Mason , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton To: KOSAKI Motohiro Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100909182649.C94F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > 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, 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: email@kvack.org