Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753606Ab1DKFKG (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:10:06 -0400 Received: from mtoichi12.ns.itscom.net ([219.110.2.182]:42525 "EHLO mtoichi12.ns.itscom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751112Ab1DKFKB (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:10:01 -0400 From: "J. R. Okajima" Subject: Re: Q. locking order of dcache_lru_lock To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Al Viro , Christoph Hellwig , Nick Piggin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1302369133.2388.1.camel@twins> References: <9769.1302268831@jrobl> <1302369133.2388.1.camel@twins> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:09:31 +0900 Message-ID: <29946.1302498571@jrobl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 714 Lines: 20 Peter Zijlstra: > On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 22:20 +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote: > >=20 > > When spin_trylock(&dentry->d_lock) successfully acquired d_lock, does > > the violation of locking order happen (or a deadlock, in worse case)?=20 > > No, since a trylock never actually blocks a deadlock cannot occur. Ah, exactly. I had to be sleeping when I wrote about deadlock. How about the locking order? Do you think d_lock after dcache_lru_lock is a problem? J. R. Okajima -- 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/