Re: + shmem-fix-faulting-into-a-hole-while-its-punched-take-2.patch added to -mm tree

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Mon Jul 14 2014 - 06:10:40 EST

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 05:43:13PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 07/11/2014 11:59 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> I agree with you that "The call trace is very clear on it that its not", but
> >>> > > when you have 500 call traces you really want something better than going
> >>> > > through it one call trace at a time.
> >> >
> >> > Points well made, and I strongly agree with Vlastimil and Sasha.
> >> > There is a world of difference between a lock wanted and a lock held,
> >> > and for the display of locks "held" to conceal that difference is unhelpful.
> >> > It just needs one greppable word to distinguish the cases.
> > So for the actual locking scenario it doesn't make a difference one way
> > or another. These threads all can/could/will acquire the lock
> > (eventually), so all their locking chains should be considered.
> I think that the difference here is that we're not actually debugging a locking
> issue, we're merely using lockdep to help with figuring out a non-locking
> related bug and finding it difficult because lockdep's list of "held locks"
> is really a lie :)

OK, so I suppose we could document that the top lock might not actually
be held (yet). But then who will ever read said document ;-)

The problem with 'fixing' this is that we don't exactly have spare
storage in struct held_lock, and lock_acquired() is only enabled for

I just don't think its worth it.

Attachment: pgp9bS40DMeBR.pgp
Description: PGP signature