-
由 Hugh Dickins 提交于
We have forgotten the rules of lock nesting: the irq-safe ones must be taken inside the non-irq-safe ones, otherwise we are open to deadlock: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&(&pc->lock)->rlock); local_irq_disable(); lock(&(&zone->lru_lock)->rlock); lock(&(&pc->lock)->rlock); <Interrupt> lock(&(&zone->lru_lock)->rlock); To check a different locking issue, I happened to add a spin_lock to memcg's bit_spin_lock in lock_page_cgroup(), and lockdep very quickly complained about __mem_cgroup_commit_charge_lrucare() (on CPU1 above). So delete __mem_cgroup_commit_charge_lrucare(), passing a bool lrucare to __mem_cgroup_commit_charge() instead, taking zone->lru_lock under lock_page_cgroup() in the lrucare case. The original was using spin_lock_irqsave, but we'd be in more trouble if it were ever called at interrupt time: unconditional _irq is enough. And ClearPageLRU before del from lru, SetPageLRU before add to lru: no strong reason, but that is the ordering used consistently elsewhere. Fixes 36b62ad5 ("memcg: simplify corner case handling of LRU"). Signed-off-by: NHugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Acked-by: NJohannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@openvz.org> Acked-by: NKAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
9ce70c02