[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140917182202.GE19308@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:22:02 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
david@...morbit.com, bmr@...hat.com, jcastillo@...hat.com,
mguzik@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: Use a seperate wq for do_sync_work() to avoid
a potential deadlock
On 09/17, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
>
> Since do_sync_work() is a deferred function it can block indefinitely by
> design. At present do_sync_work() is added to the global system_wq.
> As such a deadlock is theoretically possible between sys_unmount() and
> sync_filesystems():
>
> * The current work fn on the system_wq (do_sync_work()) is blocked
> waiting to aquire a sb's s_umount for reading.
>
> * The "umount" task is the current owner of the s_umount in
> question but is waiting for do_sync_work() to continue.
> Thus we hit a deadlock situation.
>
I can't comment the patches in this area, but I am just curious...
Could you explain this deadlock in more details? I simply can't understand
what "waiting for do_sync_work()" actually means.
> This patch introduces a separate workqueue for do_sync_work() to avoid a
> the described deadlock.
The subject and the changelog do not match the patch, it doesn't add/use
another workqueue.
Oleg.
--
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