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: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:14:44 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20100914191250.C9C7.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20100909182649.C94F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100913091405.GB23508@csn.ul.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, 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: Mel Gorman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100913091405.GB23508@csn.ul.ie> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > > example, > > > > __do_fault() > > { > > (snip) > > if (unlikely(!(ret & VM_FAULT_LOCKED))) > > lock_page(vmf.page); > > else > > VM_BUG_ON(!PageLocked(vmf.page)); > > > > /* > > * Should we do an early C-O-W break? > > */ > > page = vmf.page; > > if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) { > > if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) { > > anon = 1; > > if (unlikely(anon_vma_prepare(vma))) { > > ret = VM_FAULT_OOM; > > goto out; > > } > > page = alloc_page_vma(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, > > vma, address); > > > > Correct, this is a problem. I already had dropped the patch but thanks for > pointing out a deadlock because I was missing this case. Nothing stops the > page being faulted being sent to shrink_page_list() when alloc_page_vma() > is called. The deadlock might be hard to hit, but it's there. Yup, unfortunatelly. > > Afaik, detailed rule is, > > > > o kswapd can call lock_page() because they never take page lock outside vmscan > > lock_page_nosync as you point out in your next mail. While it can call > it, kswapd shouldn't because normally it avoids stalls but it would not > deadlock as a result of calling it. Agreed. > > 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 the safer bet is simply to say "direct reclaimers should not > call lock_page() because the fault path could be holding a lock on that > page already". Yup, agreed. -- 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