[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150717173117.GB30443@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:31:17 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore
On 07/17, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 07:32:56PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > /*
> > * We want lockdep to tell us about possible deadlocks with freezing but
> > * it's it bit tricky to properly instrument it. Getting a freeze protection
> > * works as getting a read lock but there are subtle problems. XFS for example
> > * gets freeze protection on internal level twice in some cases, which is OK
>
> Sorry, I've missed something here - where is XFS nesting
> sb_start_intwrite() calls?
Heh ;) I too tried to understand thi but failed. I was not surprized,
I know nothing about fs/.
Dave, I didn't write this comment. Please look at acquire_freeze_lock().
If we can remove this logic - great! but this needs a separate change.
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