From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:05:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [patch] vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 - fixing deadlocks In-Reply-To: <20000925165151.I2615@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Linus Torvalds , Rik van Riel , Roger Larsson , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 -- 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/