Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:25:51 -0700 | From | Zach Brown <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] page lock ordering and OCFS2 |
| |
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> What I would ask is why does the above dlm thread need to hold the > data_lock duing truncate_inode_pages?
I hope the mail I just sent made that a little more clear.
> and repeat truncate_inode_pages, etc. Eventually it will succeed. And no > need for nasty VFS patch you are proposing...
Yeah, this also came to me this morning in the shower :) There are some hard cases because these are actually read-write locks, but it might be doable. We're discussing it.
> no pages left, unless there is an overeager read process at work on that > mapping at the same time.
I fear that it'll be pretty easy to get bad capture effects, but maybe that's ok. We'll see.
- z - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |