From: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Yasunori Goto <y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: setup_per_zone_pages_min(): zone->lock vs. zone->lru_lock
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:20:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1222723206.6791.2.camel@ubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080929173607.GC14905@brain>
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 18:36 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> The allocator protects it freelists using zone->lock (as we can see in
> rmqueue_bulk), so anything which manipulates those should also be using
> that lock. move_freepages() is scanning the cmap and picking up free
> pages directly off the free lists, it is expecting those lists to be
> stable; it would appear to need zone->lock. It does look like
> setup_per_zone_pages_min() is holding the wrong thing at first look.
I just noticed that the spin_lock in that function is much older than the
call to setup_zone_migrate_reserve(), which then calls move_freepages().
So it seems that the zone->lru_lock there does (did?) have another purpose,
maybe protecting zone->present_pages/pages_min/etc.
Looks like the need for a zone->lock (if any) was added later, but I'm not
sure if makes sense to take both locks together, or if the lru_lock is still
needed at all.
Thanks,
Gerald
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-09-29 21:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-09-29 17:10 setup_per_zone_pages_min(): zone->lock vs. zone->lru_lock Gerald Schaefer
2008-09-29 17:36 ` Andy Whitcroft
2008-09-29 21:20 ` Gerald Schaefer [this message]
2008-09-30 0:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-09-30 1:53 ` Yasunori Goto
2008-10-01 17:39 ` [PATCH] setup_per_zone_pages_min(): take zone->lock instead of zone->lru_lock Gerald Schaefer
2008-10-02 5:49 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-10-02 10:00 ` Yasunori Goto
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1222723206.6791.2.camel@ubuntu \
--to=gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apw@shadowen.org \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).