Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:38:42 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |