> > Before:
> > lock_page()(TestSetPageLocked())
> > spin_lock(zone->lock)
> > unlock_page()
> > spin_unlock(zone->lock)
>
> Couple of comments:
> * I believe that the locks are acquired in the right order--at least as
> documented in the comments in mm/rmap.c.
> * The unlocking appears out of order because this function attempts to
> hold the zone lock across a few pages in the pagevec, but must switch to
> a different zone lru lock when it finds a page on a different zone from
> the zone whose lock it is holding--like in the pagevec draining
> functions, altho' they don't need to lock the page.
>
> > After:
> > spin_lock(zone->lock)
> > spin_unlock(zone->lock)
>
> Right. With your reworked check_move_unevictable_page() [with retry],
> we don't need to lock the page here, any more. That means we can revert
> all of the changes to pass the mapping back to sys_shmctl() and move the
> call to scan_mapping_unevictable_pages() back to shmem_lock() after
> clearing the address_space's unevictable flag. We only did that to
> avoid sleeping while holding the shmem_inode_info lock and the
> shmid_kernel's ipc_perm spinlock.
>
> Shall I handle that, after we've tested this patch?
Yeah, I'll do it :)
> > @@ -2438,7 +2437,7 @@ static void show_page_path(struct page *
> > */
> > static void check_move_unevictable_page(struct page *page, struct zone *zone)
> > {
> > -
> > +retry:
> > ClearPageUnevictable(page); /* for page_evictable() */
> We can remove this comment ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> page_evictable() no longer asserts !PageUnevictable(), right?
Yes.
I'll remove it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
