From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] buffered write deadlock fix Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:21:19 -0800 Message-ID: <20070130152119.e0a18e58.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20070129081905.23584.97878.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20070130125558.ae9119b0.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Nick Piggin , Hugh Dickins , Linux Kernel , Linux Filesystems , Linux Memory Management Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:56114 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751864AbXA3XV3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:21:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20070130125558.ae9119b0.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:55:58 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > y'know, four or five years back I fixed this bug by doing > > current->locked_page = page; > > in the write() code, and then teaching the pagefault code to avoid locking > the same page. Patch below. > > But then evil mean Hugh pointed out that the patch is still vulnerable to > ab/ba deadlocking so I dropped it. And he was right, of course. Task A holds file a's i_mutex and takes a fault against file b's page. Task B holds file b's i_mutex and takes a fault against file a's page. Drat. I wonder if there's a sane way of preventing that.