lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Locking comment on shrink_caches()
From
   From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 14:49:40 -0300 (BRT)

Do you really need to do this ?

if (unlikely(!spin_trylock(&pagecache_lock))) {
/* we hold the page lock so the page cannot go away from under us */
spin_unlock(&pagemap_lru_lock);

spin_lock(&pagecache_lock);
spin_lock(&pagemap_lru_lock);
}

Have you actually seen bad hold times of pagecache_lock by
shrink_caches() ?

Marcelo, this is needed because of the spin lock ordering rules.
The pagecache_lock must be obtained before the pagemap_lru_lock
or else deadlock is possible. The spin_trylock is an optimization.

Franks a lot,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.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: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.126 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site