On 08/07, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 02:20 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > But. nfs4_renew_state() checks list_empty(&clp->cl_superblocks) under
> > clp->cl_sem? So, if it is possible that clp->cl_renewd was scheduled
> > at the time when nfs4_kill_renewd(), we can deadlock, no? Because
> > nfs4_renew_state() needs clp->cl_sem to complete, but nfs4_kill_renewd()
> > holds this sem, and waits for nfs4_renew_state() completion.
>
> They both take read locks,
Aaaaaaaaaah. Please ignore me, thanks!
> which means that they can take them
> simultaneously. AFAICS, the deadlock can only occur if something manages
> to insert a request for a write lock after nfs4_kill_renewd() takes its
> read lock, but before nfs4_renew_state() takes its read lock:
>
> 1) nfs4_kill_renewd() 2) nfs4_renew_state() 3) somebody else
> ------------------- ------------------ -------------
> read lock
> wait on (2) to complete
> write lock <waits on (1)>
> read lock <waits on (3),
> because rw_semaphores
> don't allow a read lock
> request to jump a write
> lock request>
>
> however as I explained earlier, the only process that can take a write
> lock is the reclaimer daemon, but we _know_ that cannot be running (for
> one thing, the reference count on nfs_client is zero, for the other,
> there are no superblocks).
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
