setup_per_zone_pages_min(): zone->lock vs. zone->lru_lock

[Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com>]

Hi,

is zone->lru_lock really the right lock to take in setup_per_zone_pages_min()?
All other functions in mm/page_alloc.c take zone->lock instead, for working
with page->lru free-list or PageBuddy().

setup_per_zone_pages_min() eventually calls move_freepages(), which is also
manipulating the page->lru free-list and checking for PageBuddy(). Both
should be protected by zone->lock instead of zone->lru_lock, if I understood
that right, or else there could be a race with the other functions in
mm/page_alloc.c.

We ran into a list corruption bug in free_pages_bulk() once, during memory
hotplug stress test, but cannot reproduce it easily. So I cannot verify if
using zone->lock instead of zone->lru_lock would fix it, but to me it looks
like this may be the problem.

Any thoughts?

BTW, I also wonder if a spin_lock_irq() would be enough, instead of
spin_lock_irqsave(), because this function should never be called from
interrupt context, right?

Thanks,
Gerald


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>