Re: [PATCH 0/3] mmap vs NFS

From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:27:32 -0500

On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 21:01 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

Currently there is an AB-BA deadlock in NFS mmap.

nfs_file_mmap() can take i_mutex, while holding mmap_sem, whereas the regular
locking order is the other way around.

This patch-set attempts to solve this issue.

Looks good from the NFS point of view.

Acked-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

References:
- [PATCH 0/3] mmap vs NFS
  - From: Peter Zijlstra

Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1
Next by Date: Re: uml doesn't work on 2.6.24-rc2
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mmap vs NFS
Next by thread: psmouse.c: GlidePoint at isa0060/serio1/input0 lost sync at byte 1
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: [PATCH 0/3] mmap vs NFS
... Seems I forgot to mention this is an RFC :-) ... locking order is the other way around. ... This patch-set attempts to solve this issue. ... Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ ...
(Linux-Kernel)
[PATCH 0/3] mmap vs NFS
... Currently there is an AB-BA deadlock in NFS mmap. ... locking order is the other way around. ... This patch-set attempts to solve this issue. ...
(Linux-Kernel)