Re: [patch] vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 - fixing deadlocks

[Alexander Viro]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, but in this case you have got a lot more variables than you
> > seem to think.  The obvious lock is the ext2 superblock lock, but
> > there are side cases with quota and O_SYNC which are much less
> > commonly triggered.  That's not even starting to consider the other
> > dozens of filesystems in the kernel which have to be audited if we
> > change the locking requirements for GFP calls.
> 
> i'd suggest to simply BUG() in schedule() if the superblock lock is held
> not directly by lock_super. Holding the superblock lock is IMO quite rude
> anyway (for performance and latency) - is there any place where we hold it
> for a long time and it's unavoidable?

Ingo, schedule() has no bloody business _knowing_ about superblock locks
in the first place. Yes, ext2 should not bother taking it at all. For
completely unrelated reasons.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/