Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 May 2012 10:55:40 +0530 | From | "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -V7 05/14] hugetlb: avoid taking i_mmap_mutex in unmap_single_vma() for hugetlb |
| |
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:57:47PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2012, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > i_mmap_mutex lock was added in unmap_single_vma by 502717f4e ("hugetlb: > > fix linked list corruption in unmap_hugepage_range()") but we don't use > > page->lru in unmap_hugepage_range any more. Also the lock was taken > > higher up in the stack in some code path. That would result in deadlock. > > > > unmap_mapping_range (i_mmap_mutex) > > -> unmap_mapping_range_tree > > -> unmap_mapping_range_vma > > -> zap_page_range_single > > -> unmap_single_vma > > -> unmap_hugepage_range (i_mmap_mutex) > > > > You should be able to show this with lockdep?
I was not able to get a lockdep report
> > > For shared pagetable support for huge pages, since pagetable pages are ref > > counted we don't need any lock during huge_pmd_unshare. We do take > > i_mmap_mutex in huge_pmd_share while walking the vma_prio_tree in mapping. > > (39dde65c9940c97f ("shared page table for hugetlb page")). > > > > I think this should be folded into patch 4, the code you're removing here > is just added in that function unnecessarily. >
I am removing i_mmap_mutex in this patch. That is not added in patch 4.
-aneesh
| |