Hillf Danton <dhillf@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V > <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> IMHO, it's a false positive because i_mmap_mutex was held by kswapd >>> while one in the middle of fault path could be never on kswapd context. >>> >>> It seems lockdep for reclaim-over-fs isn't enough smart to identify >>> between background and direct reclaim. >>> >>> Wait for other's opinion. >> >> Is that reasoning correct ?. We may not deadlock because hugetlb pages >> cannot be reclaimed. So the fault path in hugetlb won't end up >> reclaiming pages from same inode. But the report is correct right ? >> >> >> Looking at the hugetlb code we have in huge_pmd_share >> >> out: >> pte = (pte_t *)pmd_alloc(mm, pud, addr); >> mutex_unlock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex); >> return pte; >> >> I guess we should move that pmd_alloc outside i_mmap_mutex. Otherwise >> that pmd_alloc can result in a reclaim which can call shrink_page_list ? >> > Hm, can huge pages be reclaimed, say by kswapd currently? No we don't reclaim hugetlb pages. -aneesh -- 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>