From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] ashmem: Fix ashmem_shrink deadlock. Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 13:39:35 -0700 Message-ID: <20130502203935.GA25567@kroah.com> References: <1367416573-5430-1-git-send-email-rlove@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Rientjes Cc: Robert Love , devel , Shankar Brahadeeswaran , Bjorn Bringert , Hugh Dickins , LKML , linux-next , Anjana V Kumar , Andrew Morton , Dan Carpenter List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 11:22:18AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 1 May 2013, David Rientjes wrote: > > > > Don't acquire ashmem_mutex in ashmem_shrink if we've somehow recursed into the > > > shrinker code from within ashmem. Just bail out, avoiding a deadlock. This is > > > fine, as ashmem cache pruning is advisory anyhow. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Love > > > > Any reason not to send this to stable@vger.kernel.org if it fixes an > > observable deadlock? (It's annotated to be applied to linux-next, but I > > don't see any differences between it and Linus's tree.) > > > > This was sent separately to stable@vger.kernel.org before being merged > into Linus's tree . Greg, could this be queued up for 3.10 with a cc to > stable@vger.kernel.org? Yes, I'll handle all of this properly, thanks. greg k-h