Re: RFC: Block reservation for hugetlbfs

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:38:42AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>David Gibson wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:18:59PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>
>>>>This introduces
>>>>tree_lock(r) -> hugetlb_lock
>>>>
>>>>And we already have
>>>>hugetlb_lock -> lru_lock
>>>>
>>>>So we now have tree_lock(r) -> lru_lock, which would deadlock
>>>>against lru_lock -> tree_lock(w), right?
>>>>
>>>
>>>>From a quick glance it looks safe, but I'd _really_ rather not
>>>
>>>>introduce something like this.
>>>
>>>
>>>Urg.. good point.  I hadn't even thought of that consequence - I was
>>>more worried about whether I need i_lock or i_mutex to protect my
>>>updates to i_blocks.
>>>
>>>Would hugetlb_lock -> tree_lock(r) be any preferable (I think that's a
>>>possible alternative).
>>>
>>
>>Yes I think that should avoid the introduction of new lock dependency.
> 
> 
> Err... "Yes" appears to contradict the rest of you statement, since my
> suggestion would still introduce a lock dependency, just a different
> one one.  It is not at all obvious to me how to avoid a lock
> dependency entirely.
> 

I mean a new core mm lock depenency (ie. lru_lock -> tree_lock).

But I must have been smoking something last night: for the life
of me I can't see why I thought there was already a hugetlb_lock
-> lru_lock dependency in there...?!

So I retract my statement. What you have there seems OK.


> Also, any thoughts on whether I need i_lock or i_mutex or something
> else would be handy..
> 

I'm not much of an fs guy. How come you don't use i_size?

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com