On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 09:05:31PM -0600, Trenton D. Adams wrote: >> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Frederic Weisbecker >> <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > While searching a pathname, an inode mutex can be acquired >> > in do_lookup() which calls reiserfs_lookup() which in turn >> > acquires the write lock. >> > >> > On the other side reiserfs_fill_super() can acquire the write_lock >> > and then call reiserfs_lookup_privroot() which can acquire an >> > inode mutex (the root of the mount point). >> > >> > So we theoretically risk an AB - BA lock inversion that could lead >> > to a deadlock. >> > >> > As for other lock dependencies found since the bkl to mutex >> > conversion, the fix is to use reiserfs_mutex_lock_safe() which >> > drops the lock dependency to the write lock. >> > >> >> I'm curious, did this get applied, and is it related to the following? >> I was having these in 2.6.30-rc3. I am now on 2.6.30-rc7 as of >> today. I haven't seen them today. But then again, I only seen this >> happen one time. > > > Hi, > > No, may be it will come for 2.6.31 but for now it is not merged so > it's not related. > > If you see such warning anymore, don't hesitate to tell about > it! > > Thanks! > I was trying to imply that the patch might fix the problem I saw, not that it was the cause. I only though that because it mentioned a potential deadlock, and it seems like that is what the problem I saw was. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
