Custom Search

Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.2.9-rt16

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> Note, yesterday while running some stress tests I hit a live lock here:
> ... 
> When it fails to grab either the inode->i_lock or the parent->d_lock it
> returns back to dput() and dput() will retry. We get into another one of
> these cases where we can spin blocking the holder of the locks.

> I experimented with adding a grab lock of the inode->i_lock or
> parent->d_lock if they existed (required initializing parent to NULL),
> which seemed to help a lot, but then eventually it locked up. As I'm not
> sure its safe to grab them straight here even after we release the
> dentry->d_lock. I'll have to enable full lockdep to see if this breaks
> the ordering.
> I haven't looked too deeply into this code yet, but I'm assuming that
> dput() can be called where we can't just take the inode or parent lock?

If you read the top of fs/dcache.c then you find an explanation of the
lock ordering. This code takes the locks in reverse order. That's why
it uses trylock.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[RT Stable]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

Add to Google Powered by Linux