[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061115112426.84e5417c.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:24:26 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc: Charles Edward Lever <chucklever@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Yet another borken page_count() check in
invalidate_inode_pages2()....
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:05:13 -0500
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 08:46 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > but nobody could have started another writeback after the "..." because they
> > couldn't have got the lock_page(), and lock_page() is required for
> > ->writepage()?
>
> Nothing can have called writepage(), but something may be calling
> ->writepages(). That may call set_page_writeback without taking the page
> lock.
>
The protocol is
lock_page()
set_page_writeback()
->writepage()
and there are various places which assume that nobody will start new
writeout of a locked page. But I forget where they are - things have always
been this way.
If NFS is running set_page_writeback() against an unlocked page then I
don't know what will break. I didn't know it was doing that.
-
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