Messages in this thread | | | 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) |
| |
> 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? > > > > >
| |