[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060727094617.GA5955@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:46:17 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
eike-kernel@...tec.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
aia21@...tab.net, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG?] possible recursive locking detected
* Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk> wrote:
> An example is the potential deadlock in generic buffered file write
> where we fault in a page via fault_in_pages_readable() but there is
> nothing to guarantee that page will not go away between us doing this
> and us using the page.
isnt this solved by:
commit 6527c2bdf1f833cc18e8f42bd97973d583e4aa83
Author: Vladimir V. Saveliev <vs@...esys.com>
Date: Tue Jun 27 02:53:57 2006 -0700
[PATCH] generic_file_buffered_write(): deadlock on vectored write
?
if not, do you have any description of the problem or a link to previous
discussion[s] outlining the problem? To me it appears this is a kernel
bug where we simply dropped the ball to fix it. I personally dont find
it acceptable to have deadlocks in the kernel, where all that is needed
to trigger it is "high i/o loads", no matter how hard it is to fix the
deadlock.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists