lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/8] thp, mm: locking tail page is a bug
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:47:51 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
>
> Locking head page means locking entire compound page.
> If we try to lock tail page, something went wrong.
>
> ..
>
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -639,6 +639,7 @@ void __lock_page(struct page *page)
> {
> DEFINE_WAIT_BIT(wait, &page->flags, PG_locked);
>
> + VM_BUG_ON(PageTail(page));
> __wait_on_bit_lock(page_waitqueue(page), &wait, sleep_on_page,
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> }
> @@ -648,6 +649,7 @@ int __lock_page_killable(struct page *page)
> {
> DEFINE_WAIT_BIT(wait, &page->flags, PG_locked);
>
> + VM_BUG_ON(PageTail(page));
> return __wait_on_bit_lock(page_waitqueue(page), &wait,
> sleep_on_page_killable, TASK_KILLABLE);
> }

lock_page() is a pretty commonly called function, and I assume quite a
lot of people run with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y.

Is the overhead added by this patch really worthwhile?

I'm thinking I might leave it in -mm indefinitely but not send it
upstream.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-17 23:21    [W:0.094 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site