On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 19:07 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote: > Hi Balbir, > > > diff -puN mm/memcontrol.c~mem-control-lru-and-reclaim mm/memcontrol.c > > --- linux-2.6.23-rc1-mm1/mm/memcontrol.c~mem-control-lru-and-reclaim 2007-07-28 01:12:50.000000000 +0530 > > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc1-mm1-balbir/mm/memcontrol.c 2007-07-28 01:12:50.000000000 +0530 > > > /* > > * The memory controller data structure. The memory controller controls both > > @@ -51,6 +54,10 @@ struct mem_container { > > */ > > struct list_head active_list; > > struct list_head inactive_list; > > + /* > > + * spin_lock to protect the per container LRU > > + */ > > + spinlock_t lru_lock; > > }; > > The spinlock is not annotated by lockdep. The following patch should do > it. One does not need explicit lockdep annotations unless there is a non obvious use of the locks. A typical example of that would be the inode locks, that get placed differently in the various filesystem's locking hierarchy and might hence seem to generate contradictory locking rules - even though they are consistent within a particular filesystem. So unless there are 2 or more distinct locking hierarchies this one lock partakes in, there is no need for this annotation. Was this patch driven by a lockdep report? > Signed-off-by: Dhaval Giani <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Gautham Shenoy R <[email protected]> > > > Index: linux-2.6.23-rc1/mm/memcontrol.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.23-rc1.orig/mm/memcontrol.c 2007-07-30 17:27:24.000000000 +0530 > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc1/mm/memcontrol.c 2007-07-30 18:43:40.000000000 +0530 > @@ -501,6 +501,9 @@ > > static struct mem_container init_mem_container; > > +/* lockdep should know about lru_lock */ > +static struct lock_class_key lru_lock_key; > + > static struct container_subsys_state * > mem_container_create(struct container_subsys *ss, struct container *cont) > { > @@ -519,6 +522,7 @@ > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mem->active_list); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mem->inactive_list); > spin_lock_init(&mem->lru_lock); > + lockdep_set_class(&mem->lru_lock, &lru_lock_key); > mem->control_type = MEM_CONTAINER_TYPE_ALL; > return &mem->css; > }
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- References:
- [-mm PATCH 0/9] Memory controller introduction (v4)
- From: Balbir Singh <[email protected]>
- [-mm PATCH 6/9] Memory controller add per container LRU and reclaim (v4)
- From: Balbir Singh <[email protected]>
- Re: [-mm PATCH 6/9] Memory controller add per container LRU and reclaim (v4)
- From: Dhaval Giani <[email protected]>
- [-mm PATCH 0/9] Memory controller introduction (v4)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ofa-general] [PATCH 1/2] ehca: remove checkpatch.pl's warnings "externs should be avoided in .c files"
- Next by Date: 2.6.23-rc1, spamassassin vs rpc stuffs, rpc 1, spamassassin 0
- Previous by thread: Re: [-mm PATCH 6/9] Memory controller add per container LRU and reclaim (v4)
- Next by thread: Re: [-mm PATCH 6/9] Memory controller add per container LRU and reclaim (v4)
- Index(es):