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
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 speci
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 page
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 sh
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 02:22:19 200
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 */
s
6 matches
Mail list logo
