Hi Matthew,
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 07:16:08AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:58:51PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > This patch resolves the livelock by not taking hlist_bl_lock in
> > d_alloc_parallel if the sequence counter is odd, since any subsequent
> > masked compar
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:58:51PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> This patch resolves the livelock by not taking hlist_bl_lock in
> d_alloc_parallel if the sequence counter is odd, since any subsequent
> masked comparison with i_dir_seq will fail anyway.
>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra
> Cc: Al Viro
> Signe
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:58:51PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> If d_alloc_parallel runs concurrently with __d_add, it is possible for
> d_alloc_parallel to continuously retry whilst i_dir_seq has been
> incremented to an odd value by __d_add:
>
> CPU0:
> __d_add
> n = start_dir_add(dir);
>
If d_alloc_parallel runs concurrently with __d_add, it is possible for
d_alloc_parallel to continuously retry whilst i_dir_seq has been
incremented to an odd value by __d_add:
CPU0:
__d_add
n = start_dir_add(dir);
cmpxchg(&dir->i_dir_seq, n, n + 1) == n
CPU1:
d_alloc_paral
4 matches
Mail list logo