[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1184530400.5284.111.camel@lappy>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:13:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>, cmm@...ibm.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support
features in larger inode
On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 12:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:21:03 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > Shows the current stacktrace where we violate the previously established
> > locking order.
>
> yup, but the lock_page() which we did inside truncate_mutex was a
> lock_page() against a different address_space: the blockdev mapping.
>
> So this is OK - we'll never take truncate_mutex against the blockdev
> mapping (it doesn't have one, for a start ;))
>
> This is similar to the quite common case where we take inode A's
> i_mutex inside inode B's i_mutex, which needs special lockdep annotations.
>
> I think. I haven't looked into this in detail.
Right, I can make lock_page classes per address space. Lets see if this
one goes away.
-
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