[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070206020916.GA31476@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 03:09:16 +0100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Filesystems <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 9/9] mm: fix pagecache write deadlocks
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 05:40:35PM +0000, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > truncate's OK: we're holding i_mutex.
>
> How about excluding readpage() (in addition to truncate if Nick is right
> and some cases of truncate do not hold i_mutex) with an extra page flag as
> I proposed for truncate exclusion? Then it would not matter that
> prepare_write might have allocated blocks and might expose stale data.
> It would go to sleep and wait on the bit to be cleared instead of trying
> to bring the page uptodate. It can then lock the page and either find it
> uptodate (because commit_write did it) or not and then bring it uptodate.
>
> Then we could safely fault in the page, copy from it into a temporary
> page, then lock the destination page again and copy into it.
>
> This is getting more involved as a patch again... )-: But at least it
> does not affect the common case except for having to check the new page
> flag in every readpage() and truncate() call. But at least the checks
> could be with an "if (unlikely(newpageflag()))" so should not be too bad.
>
> Have I missed anything this time?
Yes. If you have a flag to exclude readpage(), then you must also
exclude filemap_nopage, in which case it is still deadlocky.
-
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