From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Rohland Subject: Re: [Patch] deadlock on write in tmpfs References: <20010501173210.S26638@redhat.com> Date: 02 May 2001 14:00:53 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20010501173210.S26638@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: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , MM mailing list List-ID: Hi Stephen, On Tue, 1 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > If the locking is for a completely different reason, then a > different semaphore is quite appropriate. In this case you're > trying to lock the shm internal info structures, which is quite > different from the sort of inode locking which the VFS tries to do > itself, so the new semaphore appears quite clean --- and definitely > needed. It's not the addition to the inode semaphore I do care about, but the addition to the spin lock which protects also the shmem internals. But you are probably right: It only protects the onthefly pages between page cache and swap cache. Greetings Christoph -- 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/