![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
David Gibson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:38:42AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>David Gibson wrote: >> >>>On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:18:59PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: >> >>>>This introduces >>>>tree_lock(r) -> hugetlb_lock >>>> >>>>And we already have >>>>hugetlb_lock -> lru_lock >>>> >>>>So we now have tree_lock(r) -> lru_lock, which would deadlock >>>>against lru_lock -> tree_lock(w), right? >>>> >>> >>>>From a quick glance it looks safe, but I'd _really_ rather not >>> >>>>introduce something like this. >>> >>> >>>Urg.. good point. I hadn't even thought of that consequence - I was >>>more worried about whether I need i_lock or i_mutex to protect my >>>updates to i_blocks. >>> >>>Would hugetlb_lock -> tree_lock(r) be any preferable (I think that's a >>>possible alternative). >>> >> >>Yes I think that should avoid the introduction of new lock dependency. > > > Err... "Yes" appears to contradict the rest of you statement, since my > suggestion would still introduce a lock dependency, just a different > one one. It is not at all obvious to me how to avoid a lock > dependency entirely. > I mean a new core mm lock depenency (ie. lru_lock -> tree_lock). But I must have been smoking something last night: for the life of me I can't see why I thought there was already a hugetlb_lock -> lru_lock dependency in there...?! So I retract my statement. What you have there seems OK. > Also, any thoughts on whether I need i_lock or i_mutex or something > else would be handy.. > I'm not much of an fs guy. How come you don't use i_size? -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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: 2006-02-22 05:23 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||