Hillf Danton <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Minchan Kim <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
