On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 00:01:46 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:16:16PM -0700] > [...snip...] > | > | No, the problem is that the patch caused the kernel to take inode_lock > | within the newly-added drop_inode(), btu drop_inode() is already called > | under inode_lock. > | > | It has nothing to do with lock_kernel() and it has nothing to do with > | sleeping. > | > > Andrew, the only call that could leading to subseq. inode_lock lock > is mark_inode_dirty() I guess (and that is snown by Eric's dump) > but as I shown you in my dbg print without SMP it's OK. So > is it SMP who lead to lock? How it depends on it? (I understand > that is a stupid question for you but if you have time explain > me this please ;) > When CONFIG_SMP=n, spin_lock() is a no-op. (Except with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, in which case spin_lock() will disable kernel preemption on SMP and non-SMP kernels) When CONFIG_SMP=y, spin_lock() really does take a lock. But if this thread already holds this lock, we'll deadlock. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
