From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752225AbaGJTHz (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2014 15:07:55 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.220.52]:56828 "EHLO mail-pa0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751704AbaGJTHy (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2014 15:07:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:06:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@eggly.anvils To: Sasha Levin cc: Hugh Dickins , Peter Zijlstra , Heiko Carstens , Vlastimil Babka , akpm@linux-foundation.org, davej@redhat.com, koct9i@gmail.com, lczerner@redhat.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, "linux-mm@kvack.org" , LKML Subject: Re: + shmem-fix-faulting-into-a-hole-while-its-punched-take-2.patch added to -mm tree In-Reply-To: <53BEE345.4090203@oracle.com> Message-ID: References: <53b45c9b.2rlA0uGYBLzlXEeS%akpm@linux-foundation.org> <53BCBF1F.1000506@oracle.com> <53BD1053.5020401@suse.cz> <53BD39FC.7040205@oracle.com> <53BD67DC.9040700@oracle.com> <53BE8B1B.3000808@oracle.com> <53BECBA4.3010508@oracle.com> <53BED7F6.4090502@oracle.com> <53BEE345.4090203@oracle.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 10 Jul 2014, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 07/10/2014 02:52 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2014, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> > On 07/10/2014 01:55 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > >>>> > >> And finally, (not) holding the i_mmap_mutex: > >>> > > I don't understand what prompts you to show this particular task. > >>> > > I imagine the dump shows lots of other tasks which are waiting to get an > >>> > > i_mmap_mutex, and quite a lot of other tasks which are neither waiting > >>> > > for nor holding an i_mmap_mutex. > >>> > > > >>> > > Why are you showing this one in particular? Because it looks like the > >>> > > one you fingered yesterday? But I didn't see a good reason to finger > >>> > > that one either. > >> > > >> > There are a few more tasks like this one, my criteria was tasks that lockdep > >> > claims were holding i_mmap_mutex, but are actually not. > > You and Vlastimil enlightened me yesterday that lockdep shows tasks as > > holding i_mmap_mutex when they are actually waiting to get i_mmap_mutex. > > Hundreds of those in yesterday's log, hundreds of them in today's. > > What if we move lockdep's acquisition point to after it actually got the > lock? > > We'd miss deadlocks, but we don't care about them right now. Anyways, doesn't > lockdep have anything built in to allow us to separate between locks which > we attempt to acquire and locks that are actually acquired? > > (cc PeterZ) > > We can treat locks that are in the process of being acquired the same as > acquired locks to avoid races, but when we print something out it would > be nice to have annotation of the read state of the lock. I certainly hope someone can work on improving that. I imagine it would be easy, and well worth doing. But won't be looking into it myself. Hugh