Re: hugepage related lockdep trace.

[Aneesh Kumar K.V]

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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/