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):
 |