On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 02:20 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > But. nfs4_renew_state() checks list_empty(&clp->cl_superblocks) under > clp->cl_sem? So, if it is possible that clp->cl_renewd was scheduled > at the time when nfs4_kill_renewd(), we can deadlock, no? Because > nfs4_renew_state() needs clp->cl_sem to complete, but nfs4_kill_renewd() > holds this sem, and waits for nfs4_renew_state() completion.
They both take read locks, which means that they can take them simultaneously. AFAICS, the deadlock can only occur if something manages to insert a request for a write lock after nfs4_kill_renewd() takes its read lock, but before nfs4_renew_state() takes its read lock: 1) nfs4_kill_renewd() 2) nfs4_renew_state() 3) somebody else ------------------- ------------------ ------------- read lock wait on (2) to complete write lock <waits on (1)> read lock <waits on (3), because rw_semaphores don't allow a read lock request to jump a write lock request> however as I explained earlier, the only process that can take a write lock is the reclaimer daemon, but we _know_ that cannot be running (for one thing, the reference count on nfs_client is zero, for the other, there are no superblocks). Cheers Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/