lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: hugepage related lockdep trace.
Date
Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V
> <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> writes:
>>> IMHO, it's a false positive because i_mmap_mutex was held by kswapd
>>> while one in the middle of fault path could be never on kswapd context.
>>>
>>> It seems lockdep for reclaim-over-fs isn't enough smart to identify
>>> between background and direct reclaim.
>>>
>>> Wait for other's opinion.
>>
>> Is that reasoning correct ?. We may not deadlock because hugetlb pages
>> cannot be reclaimed. So the fault path in hugetlb won't end up
>> reclaiming pages from same inode. But the report is correct right ?
>>
>>
>> Looking at the hugetlb code we have in huge_pmd_share
>>
>> out:
>> pte = (pte_t *)pmd_alloc(mm, pud, addr);
>> mutex_unlock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
>> return pte;
>>
>> I guess we should move that pmd_alloc outside i_mmap_mutex. Otherwise
>> that pmd_alloc can result in a reclaim which can call shrink_page_list ?
>>
> Hm, can huge pages be reclaimed, say by kswapd currently?

No we don't reclaim hugetlb pages.

-aneesh



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-19 06:02    [W:0.680 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site