[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: locking rules for ->dirty_inode()
    Nikita Danilov wrote:
    > Hello,
    > Documentation/filesystems/Locking states that all super operations may
    > block, but __set_page_dirty_buffers() calls
    > __mark_inode_dirty()->s_op->dirty_inode()
    > under mapping->private_lock spin lock.

    Actually it doesn't. We do not call down into the filesystem
    for I_DIRTY_PAGES.

    set_page_dirty() is already called under locks, via __free_pte (pagetable
    teardown). 2.4 does this as well.

    But I'll make the change anyway. I think it removes any
    ranking requirements between mapping->page_lock and
    mapping->private_lock, which is always a nice thing.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.021 / U:28.412 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site