Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:47:51 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Locking head page means locking entire compound page.
> > If we try to lock tail page, something went wrong.
> >
> > ..
> >
> > --- a/mm/filemap.c
> > +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> > @@ -639,6 +639,7 @@ void __lock_page(struct page *page)
> > {
> > DEFINE_WAIT_BIT(wait, &page->flags, PG_locked);
> >
> > + VM_BUG_ON(PageTail(page));
> > __wait_on_bit_lock(page_waitqueue(page), &wait, sleep_on_page,
> > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > }
> > @@ -648,6 +649,7 @@ int __lock_page_killable(struct page *page)
> > {
> > DEFINE_WAIT_BIT(wait, &page->flags, PG_locked);
> >
> > + VM_BUG_ON(PageTail(page));
> > return __wait_on_bit_lock(page_waitqueue(page), &wait,
> > sleep_on_page_killable, TASK_KILLABLE);
> > }
>
> lock_page() is a pretty commonly called function, and I assume quite a
> lot of people run with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y.
>
> Is the overhead added by this patch really worthwhile?
I found it useful, especially, when I was starting experiments with THP
for pagecache. But feel free to drop it if think that it adds to much
overhead.
> I'm thinking I might leave it in -mm indefinitely but not send it
> upstream.
Works for me too.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
