[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1193608230.7561.11.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:50:30 -0400
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"George G. Davis" <gdavis@...sta.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 14:11 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 06:40:52PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > so we need to fix the bugs - the lock usage and the looping. At that
> > point it merely becomes a performance concern to those who use it, which
> > is the proper behaviour. If you want a faster non-checking one use
> > flock(), or add another flag that is a Linux "don't check for deadlock"
>
> You can't fix the false EDEADLK detection without solving the halting
> problem. Best of luck with that.
I can see that it would be difficult to do efficiently, but basically,
this boils down to finding a circular path in a graph. That is hardly an
unsolvable issue...
Trond
-
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