[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49hc0rxg1r.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:10:08 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Andy Grover <andy.grover@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 2/6] mm, directio: fix fork vs direct-io race (read(2) side IOW gup(write) side)
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:45:41PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> So, if you're continuously submitting async read I/O, you will starve
>> out the fork() call indefinitely. I agree that you want to allow
>
> IIRC rwsem good enough to stop the down_read when a down_write is
> blocked. Otherwise page fault flood in threads would also starve any
> mmap or similar call. Still with this approach fork will start to hang
Really? I don't actually see that in the code, have I missed it?
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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