On 12/5/2017 2:30 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:16:19PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:For now, wait_for_completion() / complete() works with lockdep, add lock_page() / unlock_page() and its family to lockdep support. Changes from v1 - Move lockdep_map_cross outside of page_ext to make it flexible - Prevent allocating lockdep_map per page by default - Add a boot parameter allowing the allocation for debugging Byungchul Park (4): lockdep: Apply crossrelease to PG_locked locks lockdep: Apply lock_acquire(release) on __Set(__Clear)PageLocked lockdep: Move data of CONFIG_LOCKDEP_PAGELOCK from page to page_ext lockdep: Add a boot parameter enabling to track page locks using lockdep and disable it by defaultI don't like the way you've structured this patch series; first adding the lockdep map to struct page, then moving it to page_ext.
Hello, I will make them into one patch.
I also don't like it that you've made CONFIG_LOCKDEP_PAGELOCK not individually selectable. I might well want a kernel with crosslock support, but only for completions.
OK then, I will make it individually selectable. I want to know others' opinions as well. Thank you for the opinions. I will apply yours next spin. -- Thanks, Byungchul -- 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>
