Messages in this thread | | | From | (Kanoj Sarcar) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kanoj-mm17-2.3.21 kswapd vma scanning protection | Date | Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:13:36 -0700 (PDT) |
| |
> > Kanoj Sarcar wrote: > > Explain ... who are the readers, and who are the writers? I think if you > > are talking about a semaphore lock being held thru out swapout() in the > > try_to_swap_out path, you are reduced to the same deadlock I just pointed > > out. I was talking more about a monitor like approach here. > > The lock is held thru out swapout(), but it is a shared lock: multiple > swapper threads can own it. There should be no lock-up. > > reader: swapper. Reentrancy is not a problem because it is a read-lock, > ie shared. The implementation must starve exclusive waiters (ie a reader > is allowed to continue even if a writer is waiting). > > write: everyone who changes the vma list. These functions must not sleep > while owning the ERESOURCE (IIRC the NT kernel name) exclusive. > > I hope I have not overlocked a detail, > Manfred >
With an eye partly towards this implementation, I had the page stealer code grab vmlist_access_lock, while others get vmlist_modify_lock, although in mm.h, both of these reduce to a down() operation.
The reason I am not very keen on this solution either is if you consider process A holding vmlist_access_lock of B, going into swapout(), where it tries to get a (sleeping) driver lock. Meanwhile, process B has the driver lock, and is trying to grab the vmlist_update_lock on itself, ie B, maybe to add/delete the vma. I do not think there is such a driver currently though.
Kanoj
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |