| Date | Mon, 29 May 2006 18:36:24 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch 55/61] lock validator: special locking: sb->s_umount |
| |
On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:27:32 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > > workaround for special sb->s_umount locking rule. > > s_umount gets held across a series of lock dropping and releasing > in prune_one_dentry(), so i changed the order, at the risk of > introducing a umount race. FIXME. > > i think a better fix would be to do the unlocks as _non_nested in > prune_one_dentry(), and to do the up_read() here as > an up_read_non_nested() as well? > > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> > --- > fs/dcache.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Index: linux/fs/dcache.c > =================================================================== > --- linux.orig/fs/dcache.c > +++ linux/fs/dcache.c > @@ -470,8 +470,9 @@ static void prune_dcache(int count, stru > s_umount = &dentry->d_sb->s_umount; > if (down_read_trylock(s_umount)) { > if (dentry->d_sb->s_root != NULL) { > - prune_one_dentry(dentry); > +// lockdep hack: do this better! > up_read(s_umount); > + prune_one_dentry(dentry); > continue;
argh, you broke my kernel!
I'll whack some ifdefs in here so it's only known-broken if CONFIG_LOCKDEP.
Again, we'd need the real fix here. - 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/
|