lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [CHECKER] potential deadlocks
Dawson Engler writes:
> > Andrew Morton writes:

[...]

Sorry for delay.

>
> Do you mean calls to copy_*_user and kmalloc(GFP_WAIT) or did you have
> something else in mind as well?

Yes. Imagine thread that tries to allocate memory with __GFP_FS while
keeping some file system locks. Now try_to_free_pages() calls
->writepage() method that tries to acquire the same lock. See, for
examples, comment before fs/ext3/inode.c:ext3_writepage(), or in
fs/dcache.c:shrink_dcache_memory().

>
> > We have (incomplete) description of kernel lock ordering, which is
> > centered around reiser4 locks, but also includes some core kernel stuff.
> >
> > It is available at
> >
> > http://www.namesys.com/v4/lock-ordering.dot --- source for Bell-Labs' dot(1)
> > http://www.namesys.com/v4/lock-ordering.ps --- postscript output, produced from the .dot source
>
> Wonderful; thanks!
>

I would be glad to receive additions and corrections for this diagram.

>
>
>

Nikita.
-
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 13:33    [W:0.047 / U:0.772 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site