From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from burns.conectiva (burns.conectiva [10.0.0.4]) by perninha.conectiva.com.br (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A4FD38C5C for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:10:09 -0300 (EST) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:10:07 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: Can reverse VM locks? 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: markhe@veritas.com Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: OK, I've been looking at the lock order reversal too, though for different reasons ;) On Mon, 2 Jul 2001 markhe@veritas.com wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2001 markhe@veritas.com wrote: > > > > > Anyone know of any places where reversing the lock ordering would break? > > > > Basically add_to_page_cache and remove_from_page cache and friends ;) > > Hmm, does a page-cache page need to be on an LRU list? > > If not, the 'add' case falls out OK; add it to the page-cache > first, then add it to an LRU list _after_ dropping the > pagecache_lock and taking the pagemap_lru_lock. ie. no lock > overlap. Indeed, this would work. I've been looking at this too. [snip cool analysis] > True? Yes, very much true. Now what I wanted to ask about: do you already have a patch which does this or should I write a patch which does the lock order reversal ? cheers, Rik -- Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release: "we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)" http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ -- 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-mm.org/