From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc1-mm2 Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 03:14:37 +0400 Message-ID: <20070807231437.GA1004@tv-sign.ru> References: <20070731230932.a9459617.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200708031301.01569.marc.dietrich@ap.physik.uni-giessen.de> <20070803093830.39852a01.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1186160608.7255.10.camel@localhost> <20070803172137.GA3783@tv-sign.ru> <1186520929.6625.12.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20070807213749.GA461@tv-sign.ru> <1186524314.6625.29.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20070807222042.GA553@tv-sign.ru> <1186528107.6625.71.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Neil Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Andrew Morton , Johannes Berg , Marc Dietrich To: Trond Myklebust Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IIYG1-0002aV-8N for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:14:33 -0700 Received: from x346.tv-sign.ru ([89.108.83.215] helo=mail.screens.ru) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1IIYG1-0000aF-Q8 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:14:37 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1186528107.6625.71.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net 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 > read lock 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs