From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:06:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Viro Subject: Re: [patch] vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 - fixing deadlocks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Andrea Arcangeli , Linus Torvalds , Rik van Riel , Roger Larsson , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > > > Sorry, but in this case you have got a lot more variables than you > > seem to think. The obvious lock is the ext2 superblock lock, but > > there are side cases with quota and O_SYNC which are much less > > commonly triggered. That's not even starting to consider the other > > dozens of filesystems in the kernel which have to be audited if we > > change the locking requirements for GFP calls. > > i'd suggest to simply BUG() in schedule() if the superblock lock is held > not directly by lock_super. Holding the superblock lock is IMO quite rude > anyway (for performance and latency) - is there any place where we hold it > for a long time and it's unavoidable? Ingo, schedule() has no bloody business _knowing_ about superblock locks in the first place. Yes, ext2 should not bother taking it at all. For completely unrelated reasons. -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/