On Wed, 7 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Now, if we need to take both anon_vma->lock AND i_mmap_lock in the newly
> added mm_lock() thing and we also take both those locks at the same time in
> regular code, we're probably screwed.
No, just use the normal static ordering for that case: one type of lock
goes before the other kind. If those locks nest in regular code, you have
to do that *anyway*.
The code that can take many locks, will have to get the global lock *and*
order the types, but that's still trivial. It's something like
spin_lock(&global_lock);
for (vma = mm->mmap; vma; vma = vma->vm_next) {
if (vma->anon_vma)
spin_lock(&vma->anon_vma->lock);
}
for (vma = mm->mmap; vma; vma = vma->vm_next) {
if (!vma->anon_vma && vma->vm_file && vma->vm_file->f_mapping)
spin_lock(&vma->vm_file->f_mapping->i_mmap_lock);
}
spin_unlock(&global_lock);
and now everybody follows the rule that "anon_vma->lock" precedes
"i_mmap_lock". So there can be no ABBA deadlock between the normal users
and the many-locks version, and there can be no ABBA deadlock between
many-locks-takers because they use the global_lock to serialize.
This really isn't rocket science, guys.
(I really hope and believe that they don't nest anyway, and that you can
just use a single for-loop for the many-lock case)
Linus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
