Re: [PATCH] mm, lockdep: annotate reclaim context to zone reclaimtoo

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sat, 2010-01-02 at 14:21 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> 2010/1/2 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Fri, 2010-01-01 at 18:45 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> Commit cf40bd16fd (lockdep: annotate reclaim context) introduced reclaim
> >> context annotation. But it didn't annotate zone reclaim. This patch do it.
> >
> > And yet you didn't CC anyone involved in that patch, nor explain why you
> > think it necessary, massive FAIL.
> >
> > The lockdep annotations cover all of kswapd() and direct reclaim through
> > __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim(). So why would you need an explicit
> > annotation in __zone_reclaim()?
> 
> Thanks CCing. The point is zone-reclaim doesn't use
> __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim.
> current call graph is
> 
> __alloc_pages_nodemask
>     get_page_from_freelist
>         zone_reclaim()
>     __alloc_pages_slowpath
>         __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim
>             try_to_free_pages
> 
> Actually, if zone_reclaim_mode=1, VM never call
> __alloc_pages_direct_reclaim in usual VM pressure.
> Thus I think zone-reclaim should be annotated explicitly too.
> I know almost user don't use zone reclaim mode. but explicit
> annotation doesn't have any demerit, I think.

Just be aware that the annotation isn't recursive, I'd have to trace all
calls to __zone_reclaim, but if kswapd were ever to call it you'd just
wrecked things by getting lockdep_clear_current_reclaim_state() called.

So just make sure you don't shorten the existing notations by adding it
here. Other than that it seems ok.

--
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/