Re: RFC: Block reservation for hugetlbfs

[Nick Piggin]

David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:18:59PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > This introduces
> > tree_lock(r) -> hugetlb_lock
> >
> > And we already have
> > hugetlb_lock -> lru_lock
> >
> > So we now have tree_lock(r) -> lru_lock, which would deadlock
> > against lru_lock -> tree_lock(w), right?
> >
> > From a quick glance it looks safe, but I'd _really_ rather not
> > introduce something like this.
>
>
> Urg.. good point.  I hadn't even thought of that consequence - I was
> more worried about whether I need i_lock or i_mutex to protect my
> updates to i_blocks.
>
> Would hugetlb_lock -> tree_lock(r) be any preferable (I think that's a
> possible alternative).

Yes I think that should avoid the introduction of new lock dependency.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/