Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 schrieb Oliver Neukum:
> Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 schrieb Miklos Szeredi:
> > > > Yes, fuse could handle being frozen there. However that would only
> > > > solve part of the problem: an operation waiting for a reply could be
> > > > holding a VFS mutex and some other task may be blocked on that mutex.
> > > >
> > > > How would you solve freezing those tasks?
> > >
> > > OK, you made me reach for literatur on theoretical computer science.
> > >
> > > IMHO the range of actions a fuse server is inherently limited.
> > > You must never ever block on a lock one of your clients is holding. In
> > > this case the limitation is not influenced by the freezer.
> >
> > Obviously. But I wasn't about the server trying to acquire a lock
> > held by a client. I was talking about a client trying to acquire a
> > lock held by _another_ client.
> >
> > If this coincides with the server (or some other task which the server
> > is depending on) being frozen before the clients, the freezer has a
> > problem.
>
> True, but that case can only happen if servers are frozen before clients.
> You don't need a full dependency graph. A simple set sequence of two
> classes of tasks will do.
Any replying to myself. A deadlock here is not fatal. You can and will
timeout in the freezer and can try again.
REegards
Oliver
-
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/
