Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Warn on lock_page() from reclaim context.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 10:04:19AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 18-03-18 10:22:49, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > >From f43b8ca61b76f9a19c13f6bf42b27fad9554afc0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:18:01 +0900
> > Subject: [PATCH v2] mm: Warn on lock_page() from reclaim context.
> > 
> > Kirill A. Shutemov noticed that calling lock_page[_killable]() from
> > reclaim context might cause deadlock. In order to help finding such
> > lock_page[_killable]() users (including out of tree users), this patch
> > emits warning messages when CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING is enabled.
> 
> So how do you ensure that this won't cause false possitives? E.g. do we
> ever allocate while holding the page lock and not having the page on the
> LRU list?

Hm. Do we even have a reason to lock such pages?
Probably we do, but I cannot come up with an example.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux