Hi. On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 00:12 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > However it does not fix the freezing of tasks which are waiting for > > > VFS locks (i.e. inode->i_mutex) held by the outstanding fuse requests. > > > This is the tricky part... > > > > Okay. Looking back on our conversation brought me back to this message, > > which I think needs another reply. > > > > If we take the strategy of holding new requests and allowing existing > > ones to complete, then am I right in thinking that we only need to worry > > about where inode->i_mutex is taken in fs/fuse/file.c (I don't see it > > taken in other fs/fuse/*.c files). > > Nope, i_mutex is usually taken by the VFS not the filesystem. That > means that the filesystem is called with the mutex already held. Try > "grep i_mutex fs/*.c". There's also sb->s_vfs_rename_mutex, for all > the gory details see Documentation/filesystems/Locking. > > So it's not just having to fix fuse, it's having to "fix" the VFS as > well. Remember, though, that we're only freezing fuse at the moment, and strictly one filesystem at a time. We can thus happily wait for the i_mutex taken by some other process to be released. Regards, Nigel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
