[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1Kuxk4-0006NT-Ie@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:12:52 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: ncunningham@...a.org.au
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Freezer: Don't count threads waiting for
frozen filesystems.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > However it does not fix the freezing of tasks which are waiting for
> > VFS locks (i.e. inode->i_mutex) held by the outstanding fuse requests.
> > This is the tricky part...
>
> Okay. Looking back on our conversation brought me back to this message,
> which I think needs another reply.
>
> If we take the strategy of holding new requests and allowing existing
> ones to complete, then am I right in thinking that we only need to worry
> about where inode->i_mutex is taken in fs/fuse/file.c (I don't see it
> taken in other fs/fuse/*.c files).
Nope, i_mutex is usually taken by the VFS not the filesystem. That
means that the filesystem is called with the mutex already held. Try
"grep i_mutex fs/*.c". There's also sb->s_vfs_rename_mutex, for all
the gory details see Documentation/filesystems/Locking.
So it's not just having to fix fuse, it's having to "fix" the VFS as
well.
Miklos
--
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