Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> /*
> * Try to acquire jbd_lock_bh_state() against the buffer, when j_list_lock
> is
> * held. For ranking reasons we must trylock. If we lose, schedule away
> and
> * return 0. j_list_lock is dropped in this case.
> */
> static int inverted_lock(journal_t *journal, struct buffer_head *bh)
> {
> if (!jbd_trylock_bh_state(bh)) {
> spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> schedule();
> return 0;
> }
> return 1;
> }
>
That's very lame code, that. The old "I don't know what the heck to do now
so I'll schedule" trick. Sorry.
> I guess one way to solve this is to add a wait queue here (before
> schedule()), and have the one holding the lock to wake up all on the
> waitqueue when they release it.
yup. A patch against mainline would be appropriate, please.
-
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/
