lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -V8 05/16] hugetlb: avoid taking i_mmap_mutex in unmap_single_vma() for hugetlb
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 06:33:05PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 02:29:50PM +0530, 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)
> >>
> >> 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")).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > This patch (together with the previous one) seems like a bugfix that's
> > not really related to the hugetlb controller, unless I miss something.
> >
> > Could you please submit the fix separately?
>
> Patches upto 6 can really got in a separate series. I was not sure
> whether I should split them. I will post that as a separate series now

Ok, thanks, that will make it easier to upstream the controller.

> > Maybe also fold the two patches into one and make it a single bugfix
> > change that gets rid of the lock by switching away from page->lru.
>
> I wanted to make sure the patch that drop i_mmap_mutex is a separate one
> so that we understand and document the locking details separately

Nothing prevents you from writing a proper changelog :-) But changing
from page->lru to an on-stack array does not have any merit by itself,
so it just seems like a needless dependency between two patches that
fix one problem (pita for backports into stable/distro kernels).


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-09 17:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans