Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:33:52 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: VMA_MERGING_FIXUP and patch |
| |
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 11:57:34AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > set_page_dirty() takes ->tree_lock and inode_lock. tree_lock surely is OK > > and while I cannot think of any deadlocks which could occur with taking > > inode_lock inside the rmap lock, it doesn't sound very nice. > > > > It would of course be best if we could avoid adding a new ranking > > relationship between these locks. > > agreed. the inode_lock especially is more a vfs thing than a mm thing, > so it lives quite far away.
Alas, inode_lock can be taken inside page_table_lock, in zap_pte_range(). That set_page_dirty() in there is the nastiest part of the MM locking.
- 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/
| |