lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the vfs tree
Hi Al,

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 09:10:11 +0100 Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:02:53AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > Well perhaps the vfs tree should start paying some attention to the
> > > rest of the world, particularly after -rc5.
> >
> > I can't even find this "lift sb_start_write() out of ->write()". Not on fsdevel,
> > not on lkml. What the heck is it and why was it so important?
>
> Deadlocks around splice; see the threads re overlayfs/unionmount/aufs and
> deadlocks in their copyup implementations. See also XFS freeze-related
> deadlocks, etc.
>
> The thing is, sb_start_write() is pretty high in locking hierarchy (outside
> ->i_mutex, etc.), but ->splice_write() and friends had it buried pretty
> deep. With distinctly unpleasant results, including ->..._write() instances
> using generic ones (which took the lock) *and* doing some IO outside of those
> (ext4, for example; ocfs2 also looked fishy in that respect, IIRC).
>
> The obvious solution is to lift taking that lock out of the methods, which
> had been done. It had been discussed on fsdevel and sat in #experimental for
> several weeks; time for it to go into #for-next.

It would have been useful to put something like that in the commit message ...

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-05 02:01    [W:0.050 / U:2.896 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site