lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: kernel BUG at fs/dcache.c:648! with v3.11-7890-ge5c832d
From
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> I do. What we need on the second pass (one where we currently
> take seq_writelock()) is exclusion against writers; nothing we are
> doing is worth disturbing the readers - we don't change any data
> structures. And simple grabbing the spinlock, without touching the
> sequence number would achieve exactly that. Writers will have to
> wait and won't be able to disturb us, readers won't notice anything
> happening. So yes, this extra primitive does make sense here.

Ahh. Yes, as a fallback from the reader-side sequence lock that makes
perfect sense..

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-11 06:21    [W:0.057 / U:2.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site