[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <23399.1364006951@jrobl>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 11:49:11 +0900
From: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, jack@...e.cz,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, apw@...onical.com, nbd@...nwrt.org,
neilb@...e.de, jordipujolp@...il.com, ezk@....cs.sunysb.edu,
sedat.dilek@...glemail.com, mszeredi@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] vfs: export do_splice_direct() to modules
Al Viro:
> The scenario, BTW, looks so:
> process A does sb_start_write() (on your upper layer)
> process B tries to freeze said upper layer and blocks, waiting for A to finish
> process C grabs ->i_mutex in your upper layer
> process C does vfs_write(), which blocks, since there's a pending attempt to
> freeze
> process A tries to grab ->i_mutex held by C and blocks
According to latest mm/filemap.c:generic_file_aio_write(),
sb_start_write(inode->i_sb);
mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
ret = __generic_file_aio_write(iocb, iov, nr_segs, &iocb->ki_pos);
mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
:::
sb_end_write(inode->i_sb);
Process C would block *BEFORE* i_mutex by sb_start_write()? No?
Honestly speaking I didn't pay attention about the freeze feature since
I don't use it. I am making aufs to support it now. But I don't know how
to test it...
J. R. Okajima
--
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