[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzuRCJDWQcBBET6x1OHThLrtJmnn=hS40tE7hNXfmfm6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 15:09:59 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dâniel Fraga <fragabr@...il.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> The generic code does that mnt_want_write/mnt_drop_write
> dance adound the call to setxattr, and that in turn does
>
> while (ACCESS_ONCE(mnt->mnt.mnt_flags) & MNT_WRITE_HOLD)
> cpu_relax();
>
> with preemption explicitly disabled.
Btw, I see no reason why mnt_want_write/mnt_drop_write disables
preemption. They don't care, they just care about the ordering of the
write counts and the MNT_WRITE_HOLD bit. It's the code that sets the
bit that should care, afaik. But maybe I'm missing something.
Linus
--
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