From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from penguin.e-mind.com (penguin.e-mind.com [195.223.140.120]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA13867 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 1999 13:59:22 -0500 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 19:41:36 +0100 (CET) From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: MM deadlock [was: Re: arca-vm-8...] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Savochkin Andrey Vladimirovich , steve@netplus.net, "Eric W. Biederman" , brent verner , "Garst R. Reese" , Kalle Andersson , Zlatko Calusic , Ben McCann , Alan Cox , bredelin@ucsd.edu, "Stephen C. Tweedie" , linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Linus Torvalds wrote: > refuse to touch an inode that is busy is a sure way to allow people to What do you mean for busy? What about refusing filemap_write_page() in filemap_swapout() only if !atomic_count(&vma->vm_file->d_entry->d_inode->i_sem.count)? That way other no-fs path could still put the dirty pages of the shared mapping on disk. Today I had a really little time to play with Linux due OFFTOPIC University studies (I should never play with Linux :() so I had not time to try out this my new idea, so maybe I am missing something... Other my thoughts about the topic are: maybe do the inode sempahore recursive could be better anyway so better to do that now? I don't know what does it mean recursive ;), I guess like lock_kernel(). But that way we would be not sure to preserve data integrity if the same process would do crazy things, right now we would "only" deadlock in such case. Andrea Arcangeli -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org