From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:20:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: mingo@elte.hu 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: Alexander Viro 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, Alexander Viro wrote: > > 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. i only suggested this as a debugging helper, instead of the suggested ext2_getblk() BUG() helper. Obviously schedule() has no business knowing about filesystem locks. 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/