Re: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() in mmu_take_all_locks()

[Avi Kivity]

On 04/01/2010 02:13 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > Anyway, I don't see a reason why we can't convert those locks to
> > mutexes and get rid of the whole preempt disabled region.
>
> If someone is willing to audit all code paths to make sure these locks 
> are always taken in schedulable context I agree that's a better fix.

From mm/rmap.c:

> /*
>  * Lock ordering in mm:
>  *
>  * inode->i_mutex    (while writing or truncating, not reading or 
> faulting)
>  *   inode->i_alloc_sem (vmtruncate_range)
>  *   mm->mmap_sem
>  *     page->flags PG_locked (lock_page)
>  *       mapping->i_mmap_lock
>  *         anon_vma->lock
...
> *
>  * (code doesn't rely on that order so it could be switched around)
>  * ->tasklist_lock
>  *   anon_vma->lock      (memory_failure, collect_procs_anon)
>  *     pte map lock
>  */

i_mmap_lock is a spinlock, and tasklist_lock is a rwlock, so some 
changes will be needed.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/