lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Yet another borken page_count() check in invalidate_inode_pages2()....
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:05:13 -0500
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 08:46 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > but nobody could have started another writeback after the "..." because they
> > couldn't have got the lock_page(), and lock_page() is required for
> > ->writepage()?
>
> Nothing can have called writepage(), but something may be calling
> ->writepages(). That may call set_page_writeback without taking the page
> lock.
>

The protocol is

lock_page()
set_page_writeback()
->writepage()

and there are various places which assume that nobody will start new
writeout of a locked page. But I forget where they are - things have always
been this way.

If NFS is running set_page_writeback() against an unlocked page then I
don't know what will break. I didn't know it was doing that.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-15 20:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans