Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Jun 2007 10:04:25 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF |
| |
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:49:26 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Eric Sandeen - Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:46:15PM -0500] > | Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > | > | >Eric, could you please try the following: > | > > | >1) declare the spinlock in the top of inode.c as > | > > | > DEFINE_SPINLOCK(udf_drop_lock); > | > > | >2) replace in udf_drop_inode() > | > > | > kernel_lock -> spin_lock(&udf_drop_lock); > | > kernel_unlock -> spin_unlock(&udf_drop_lock); > | > > | >I'm not sure if it help but you may try ;) > | > > | > Cyrill > | > > | > | I'm sure it'll avoid the deadlock but.... > | > | Any sense of what the BKL is actually trying to protect in this case? > | > | Is it really only trying to prevent concurrent prealloc-discarders, or > | is there more? > | > | -Eric > | > > Hi Eric, > it seems BKL only trying to protect from concurrent discard_prealloc. > Moreover, a lot of UDF code does call iput with BKL held, so the only > solution I see is to add spinlocks to udf_drop_inode... I'm making patch > soon. Any comments? >
Recursive lock_kernel() is OK.
spin_lock() insode lock_kernel() is OK.
lock_kernel() inside spin_lock() is not OK, but if this was happening you'd only rarely hit a deadlock and I think this locks up every time.
We don't know what's causing this hang, do we? - 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/
| |