On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 11:58:50AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ehh.. Sleeping with the spin-lock held? Sounds like a truly bad idea.
Uggh --- the shmem code already does, see:
shmem_truncate->shmem_truncate_part->shmem_free_swp->
lookup_swap_cache->find_lock_page
It looks messy: lookup_swap_cache seems to be abusing the page lock
gratuitously, but there are probably callers of it which rely on the
assumption that it performs an implicit wait_on_page().
Rik, do you think it is really necessary to take the page lock and
release it inside lookup_swap_cache? I may be overlooking something,
but I can't see the benefit of it --- we can still race against
page_launder, so the page may still get locked behind our backs after
we get the reference from lookup_swap_cache (page_launder explicitly
avoids taking the pagecache hash spinlock which might avoid this
particular race).
--Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/