Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-37,: Re: [patch] show_buffers() resurrection

# Re: [patch] show_buffers() resurrection

Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@suse.de)
Sun, 12 Sep 1999 14:50:16 +0200 (CEST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Lockups - lost interrupt"
- Previous message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [patch] show_buffers() resurrection"
- In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [patch] show_buffers() resurrection"

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999, David S. Miller wrote:

>It can violate the strict buffer cache locking order if the sequence
>of events is just right.

??? trylock is always safe. You can deadlock _only_ spinning on the lock.
As far as you don't spin you can do everything you want at any time.

And BTW lru_list_lock is the first one to grab, so you can grab it at any
time, and if somebody is just grabbing it plus something else then you'll
find the lru_list_lock as just busy and you'll giveup in trylock.

Andrea

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

- Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: Lockups - lost interrupt"
- Previous message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [patch] show_buffers() resurrection"
- In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [patch] show_buffers() resurrection"