On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 06:39:49AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 01:45:35PM +0900, byungchul.park wrote: > > From: Matthew Wilcox [mailto:willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 07:15:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > (And we should not be returning to userspace with locks held anyway -- > > > > lockdep already has a check for that). > > > > > > Don't we return to userspace with page locks held, eg during async > > > directio? > > > > Hello, > > > > I think that the check when returning to user with crosslocks held > > should be an exception. Don't you think so? > > Oh yes. We have to keep the pages locked during reads, and we have to > return to userspace before I/O is complete, therefore we have to return > to userspace with pages locked. They'll be unlocked by the interrupt > handler in page_endio(). Agree. > Speaking of which ... this feature is far too heavy for use in production > on pages. You're almost trebling the size of struct page. Can we > do something like make all struct pages share the same lockdep_map? > We'd have to not complain about holding one crossdep lock and acquiring > another one of the same type, but with millions of pages in the system, > it must surely be creating a gargantuan graph right now? Um.. I will try it for page locks to work with one lockmap. That is also what Peterz pointed out and what I worried about when implementing.. Thanks for your opinion. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
