[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710291011190.18815@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:15:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.cz>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
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, 28 Oct 2007, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> But, OK, if we can identify unshared current->files at the time we put a
> task to sleep, then a slight modification of our current algorithm might
> be sufficient to detect any deadlock that involves purely posix file
> locks and processes. And we can tell people that avoiding deadlock is
> their problem as soon as any task with a shared current->files is
> involved. (Ditto, I assume, if nfsd/lockd acquires a lock.)
Don't forget that comparing file_lock->fl_owner (i.e. current->files) is
not the only way how lock ownership could be computed (there could be
specific file_lock->fl_lmops->fl_compare_owner() and all of them should
be teached this new semantics, right?).
--
Jiri Kosina
-
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