Re: [PATCH] mm, lockdep: annotate reclaim context to zone reclaim too

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

2010/1/2 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>:
> On Fri, 2010-01-01 at 18:45 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> Commit cf40bd16fd (lockdep: annotate reclaim context) introduced reclaim
>> context annotation. But it didn't annotate zone reclaim. This patch do it.
>
> And yet you didn't CC anyone involved in that patch, nor explain why you
> think it necessary, massive FAIL.
>
> The lockdep annotations cover all of kswapd() and direct reclaim through
> __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim(). So why would you need an explicit
> annotation in __zone_reclaim()?

Thanks CCing. The point is zone-reclaim doesn't use
__alloc_pages_direct_reclaim.
current call graph is

__alloc_pages_nodemask
    get_page_from_freelist
        zone_reclaim()
    __alloc_pages_slowpath
        __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim
            try_to_free_pages

Actually, if zone_reclaim_mode=1, VM never call
__alloc_pages_direct_reclaim in usual VM pressure.
Thus I think zone-reclaim should be annotated explicitly too.
I know almost user don't use zone reclaim mode. but explicit
annotation doesn't have any demerit, I think.

Am I missing anything?

--
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>