Re: set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock

2001-01-23 Thread Hugh Dickins
On 19 Jan 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Well, as the new shm code doesn't return 1 any more, the whole > > locked page handling should just be deleted. ramfs always just > > re-marked the page dirty in its own "writepage()" function, so it > > was

Re: set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock

2001-01-23 Thread Hugh Dickins
On 19 Jan 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: Well, as the new shm code doesn't return 1 any more, the whole locked page handling should just be deleted. ramfs always just re-marked the page dirty in its own "writepage()" function, so it was only

Re: set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock

2001-01-19 Thread Christoph Rohland
Hi Linus, On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Well, as the new shm code doesn't return 1 any more, the whole > locked page handling should just be deleted. ramfs always just > re-marked the page dirty in its own "writepage()" function, so it > was only shmfs that ever returned this

Re: set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock

2001-01-19 Thread Christoph Rohland
Hi Linus, On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: Well, as the new shm code doesn't return 1 any more, the whole locked page handling should just be deleted. ramfs always just re-marked the page dirty in its own "writepage()" function, so it was only shmfs that ever returned this special

Re: set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock

2001-01-17 Thread Chris Mason
On Sunday, January 14, 2001 10:56:10 AM -0800 Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Marcelo Tosatti writes: >> > >> > While taking a look at page_launder()... >> >> ... >> >> > set_page_dirty() may lock the pagecache_lock which means potential >> > deadlock since we have the

Re: set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock

2001-01-14 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David S. Miller wrote: > > Marcelo Tosatti writes: > > > > While taking a look at page_launder()... > > ... > > > set_page_dirty() may lock the pagecache_lock which means potential > > deadlock since we have the pagemap_lru_lock locked. > > Indeed, the following

Re: set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock

2001-01-14 Thread David S. Miller
Marcelo Tosatti writes: > > While taking a look at page_launder()... ... > set_page_dirty() may lock the pagecache_lock which means potential > deadlock since we have the pagemap_lru_lock locked. Indeed, the following should work as a fix: --- mm/vmscan.c.~1~ Thu Jan 11 02:22:19

Re: set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock

2001-01-14 Thread David S. Miller
Marcelo Tosatti writes: While taking a look at page_launder()... ... set_page_dirty() may lock the pagecache_lock which means potential deadlock since we have the pagemap_lru_lock locked. Indeed, the following should work as a fix: --- mm/vmscan.c.~1~ Thu Jan 11 02:22:19 2001

Re: set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock

2001-01-14 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David S. Miller wrote: Marcelo Tosatti writes: While taking a look at page_launder()... ... set_page_dirty() may lock the pagecache_lock which means potential deadlock since we have the pagemap_lru_lock locked. Indeed, the following should work as a

set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock

2001-01-13 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
Hi, While taking a look at page_launder()... /* And re-start the thing.. */ spin_lock(_lru_lock); <-- if (result != 1) continue; /* writepage refused to do anything */

set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock

2001-01-13 Thread Marcelo Tosatti
Hi, While taking a look at page_launder()... /* And re-start the thing.. */ spin_lock(pagemap_lru_lock); -- if (result != 1) continue; /* writepage refused to do anything */