On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:51 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:26:26PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> [grr, gmail -- I didn't actually intend to send that.]
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Frank Filz
>>
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:26:26PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> [grr, gmail -- I didn't actually intend to send that.]
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Frank Filz wrote:
> >>> process 2 requests a write lock, gets
> [grr, gmail -- I didn't actually intend to send that.]
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Frank Filz
> wrote:
> >>> process 2 requests a write lock, gets -EDEADLK, unlocks and
> >>> requests a new read lock. That
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:21:53PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
> SQLite uses only F_SETLK, never F_SETLKW. Doesn't that mean that SQLite
> will work the same with or without deadlock detection? Doesn't deadlock
> detection only come into play with F_SETLKW?
That's correct.
> > >> (Actually,
[grr, gmail -- I didn't actually intend to send that.]
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Frank Filz wrote:
>>> process 2 requests a write lock, gets -EDEADLK, unlocks and
>>> requests a new read lock. That request succeeds
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:24:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Frank Filz wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> > [cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
> >> > userspace software that uses
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> I have no context here. I'm not sure what you are discussing or what
> questions you have or what SQLite has to do with any of it. Nevertheless, I
> have injected a few remarks inline
>
The discussion is about a new set of fcntl
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:17:20PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:10 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> [cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
> >> userspace software that uses
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Frank Filz wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > [cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
>> > userspace software that uses this stuff]
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM, J. Bruce Fields
>>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > [cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
> > userspace software that uses this stuff]
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM, J. Bruce Fields
> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:58:59PM -0800,
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:10:09 -0500
"J. Bruce Fields" wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > [cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
> > userspace software that uses this stuff]
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM, J. Bruce
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:10 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> [cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
>> userspace software that uses this stuff]
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM, J. Bruce Fields
>>
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> [cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
> userspace software that uses this stuff]
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM, J. Bruce Fields
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:58:59PM -0800, Andy
[cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
userspace software that uses this stuff]
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:58:59PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> > On Thu,
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:58:59PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:25:25 -0800
> > Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> When I think of deadlocks caused by r/w locks (which these are), I think
> >> of two kinds. First is what
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:58:59PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Jeff Layton jlay...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:25:25 -0800
Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
When I think of deadlocks caused by r/w locks (which these are), I think
of
[cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
userspace software that uses this stuff]
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM, J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:58:59PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Jeff Layton
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
userspace software that uses this stuff]
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM, J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:58:59PM -0800,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:10 PM, J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
userspace software that uses this stuff]
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM, J. Bruce
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:10:09 -0500
J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
userspace software that uses this stuff]
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM, J.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
userspace software that uses this stuff]
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM, J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:58:59PM
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Frank Filz ffilz...@mindspring.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
userspace software that uses this stuff]
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM, J. Bruce
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:17:20PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:10 PM, J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
userspace software
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org wrote:
I have no context here. I'm not sure what you are discussing or what
questions you have or what SQLite has to do with any of it. Nevertheless, I
have injected a few remarks inline
The discussion is about a new set of
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:24:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Frank Filz ffilz...@mindspring.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:29:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[cc: drh, who I suspect is responsible for the most widespread
userspace software
[grr, gmail -- I didn't actually intend to send that.]
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Frank Filz ffilz...@mindspring.com wrote:
process 2 requests a write lock, gets -EDEADLK, unlocks and
requests a new
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:21:53PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote:
SQLite uses only F_SETLK, never F_SETLKW. Doesn't that mean that SQLite
will work the same with or without deadlock detection? Doesn't deadlock
detection only come into play with F_SETLKW?
That's correct.
(Actually, what
[grr, gmail -- I didn't actually intend to send that.]
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Frank Filz ffilz...@mindspring.com
wrote:
process 2 requests a write lock, gets -EDEADLK, unlocks and
requests
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:26:26PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[grr, gmail -- I didn't actually intend to send that.]
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Frank Filz ffilz...@mindspring.com wrote:
process 2
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:51 PM, J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:26:26PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[grr, gmail -- I didn't actually intend to send that.]
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:25:25 -0800
> Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> On 01/09/2014 06:19 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> > It's not really feasible to do deadlock detection with FL_FILE_PVT
>> > locks since they aren't owned by a single task, per-se.
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:25:25 -0800
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 01/09/2014 06:19 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > It's not really feasible to do deadlock detection with FL_FILE_PVT
> > locks since they aren't owned by a single task, per-se. Deadlock
> > detection also tends to be rather expensive so
On 01/09/2014 06:19 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> It's not really feasible to do deadlock detection with FL_FILE_PVT
> locks since they aren't owned by a single task, per-se. Deadlock
> detection also tends to be rather expensive so just skip it for
> these sorts of locks.
I just looked at the
It's not really feasible to do deadlock detection with FL_FILE_PVT
locks since they aren't owned by a single task, per-se. Deadlock
detection also tends to be rather expensive so just skip it for
these sorts of locks.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton
---
fs/locks.c | 12 ++--
1 file changed,
It's not really feasible to do deadlock detection with FL_FILE_PVT
locks since they aren't owned by a single task, per-se. Deadlock
detection also tends to be rather expensive so just skip it for
these sorts of locks.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton jlay...@redhat.com
---
fs/locks.c | 12 ++--
On 01/09/2014 06:19 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
It's not really feasible to do deadlock detection with FL_FILE_PVT
locks since they aren't owned by a single task, per-se. Deadlock
detection also tends to be rather expensive so just skip it for
these sorts of locks.
I just looked at the existing
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:25:25 -0800
Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On 01/09/2014 06:19 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
It's not really feasible to do deadlock detection with FL_FILE_PVT
locks since they aren't owned by a single task, per-se. Deadlock
detection also tends to be rather
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Jeff Layton jlay...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:25:25 -0800
Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On 01/09/2014 06:19 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
It's not really feasible to do deadlock detection with FL_FILE_PVT
locks since they aren't owned by
38 matches
Mail list logo
