[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090612100744.GB13607@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:07:44 +0200
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
"riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
"chris.mason@...cle.com" <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] HWPOISON: fix tasklist_lock/anon_vma locking order
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 12:03:08PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:22:41PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > To avoid possible deadlock. Proposed by Nick Piggin:
>
> I disagree with the description. There's no possible deadlock right now.
> It would be purely out of paranoia.
>
> >
> > You have tasklist_lock(R) nesting outside i_mmap_lock, and inside anon_vma
> > lock. And anon_vma lock nests inside i_mmap_lock.
> >
> > This seems fragile. If rwlocks ever become FIFO or tasklist_lock changes
>
> I was a bit dubious on this reasoning. If rwlocks become FIFO a lot of
> stuff will likely break.
>
> > type (maybe -rt kernels do it), then you could have a task holding
>
> I think they tried but backed off quickly again
>
> It's ok with a less scare-mongering description.
There's simply no good reason to invert ordering of locks like
this.
--
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