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 NAA21327 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:26:28 -0500 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 18:59:38 +0100 (CET) From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: MM deadlock [was: Re: arca-vm-8...] In-Reply-To: <19990110145618.A32291@castle.nmd.msu.ru> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Savochkin Andrey Vladimirovich Cc: Linus Torvalds , "Eric W. Biederman" , Zlatko Calusic , Alan Cox , bredelin@ucsd.edu, "Stephen C. Tweedie" , linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Savochkin Andrey Vladimirovich wrote: > Well, doesn't semaphore recursion mean that the write atomicity > is no more guaranteed by inode's i_sem semaphore? Looking first Linus's patch I guessed right what does it mean recursion over a sempahore (not that there would be many other choices though ;). As I just pointed out the write atomicity is not more garanteed from the internal path of the same process (previously in such case we would deadlock but sure we had no ways to corrupt things). It's still garanteed that many processes working on a critical section protected by the same semaphore will not mess up things. 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