Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269361AbUIIHha (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 03:37:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269364AbUIIHha (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 03:37:30 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:3227 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269361AbUIIHh2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 03:37:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 09:35:23 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it Cc: akpm@osdl.org, jdike@addtoit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] uml:fix ubd deadlock on SMP Message-ID: <20040909073523.GH1737@suse.de> References: <20040908172503.384144933@zion.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040908172503.384144933@zion.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1516 Lines: 44 On Wed, Sep 08 2004, blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it wrote: > diff -puN arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c~uml-fix-ubd-deadlock arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c > --- uml-linux-2.6.8.1/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c~uml-fix-ubd-deadlock 2004-09-08 19:04:27.662926344 +0200 > +++ uml-linux-2.6.8.1-paolo/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c 2004-09-08 19:05:36.700431048 +0200 > @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ > #include "mem.h" > #include "mem_kern.h" > > +/*This is the queue lock. FIXME: make it per-UBD device.*/ > static spinlock_t ubd_io_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > static spinlock_t ubd_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; probably not worth it to make it per-device. doing so should be a simple search-replace job, though. > @@ -396,14 +397,16 @@ int thread_fd = -1; > */ > int intr_count = 0; > > -static void ubd_finish(struct request *req, int error) > +static inline void __ubd_finish(struct request *req, int error, int lock) > { > int nsect; > > if(error){ > - spin_lock(&ubd_io_lock); > + if (lock) > + spin_lock(&ubd_io_lock); > end_request(req, 0); > - spin_unlock(&ubd_io_lock); > + if (lock) > + spin_unlock(&ubd_io_lock); In general, doing it this way is throwned upon. Either split the function, or just make the callers acquire the lock if they have to. -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/