lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RFC: Block reservation for hugetlbfs
David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:18:59PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:

>>This introduces
>>tree_lock(r) -> hugetlb_lock
>>
>>And we already have
>>hugetlb_lock -> lru_lock
>>
>>So we now have tree_lock(r) -> lru_lock, which would deadlock
>>against lru_lock -> tree_lock(w), right?
>>
>>From a quick glance it looks safe, but I'd _really_ rather not
>>introduce something like this.
>
>
> Urg.. good point. I hadn't even thought of that consequence - I was
> more worried about whether I need i_lock or i_mutex to protect my
> updates to i_blocks.
>
> Would hugetlb_lock -> tree_lock(r) be any preferable (I think that's a
> possible alternative).
>

Yes I think that should avoid the introduction of new lock dependency.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-22 02:39    [W:0.058 / U:0.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site