Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 29 May 2006 23:27:32 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | [patch 55/61] lock validator: special locking: sb->s_umount |
| |
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
workaround for special sb->s_umount locking rule.
s_umount gets held across a series of lock dropping and releasing in prune_one_dentry(), so i changed the order, at the risk of introducing a umount race. FIXME.
i think a better fix would be to do the unlocks as _non_nested in prune_one_dentry(), and to do the up_read() here as an up_read_non_nested() as well?
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> --- fs/dcache.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux/fs/dcache.c =================================================================== --- linux.orig/fs/dcache.c +++ linux/fs/dcache.c @@ -470,8 +470,9 @@ static void prune_dcache(int count, stru s_umount = &dentry->d_sb->s_umount; if (down_read_trylock(s_umount)) { if (dentry->d_sb->s_root != NULL) { - prune_one_dentry(dentry); +// lockdep hack: do this better! up_read(s_umount); + prune_one_dentry(dentry); continue; } up_read(s_umount); - 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/
| |