On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:17:06 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:32:12 +0400 > Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Read and write codepaths both obtain lock_sem for read and then wait > > for cifsiod_wq to complete and release lock_sem. They don't do any > > lock_sem operations inside their work task queued to cifsiod_wq. But > > oplock code can obtain/release lock_sem in its work task. So, that's > > why I agree with Jeff and suggest to move the oplock code to a > > different work queue (cifsioopd_wq?) but leave read and write > > codepaths use cifsiod_wq. > > OK, how about I submit a second patch that moves the reader and writer > to its own "safe" workqueue? > > -- Steve > That'd probably work fine too. The main point is to make sure oplock breaks run on a different workqueue from where read or write completion jobs run since they are operating on the lock_sem. The other jobs that get queued to cifsiod_wq don't touch the lock_sem and shouldn't be a problem. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
