On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:51:29 +1000
Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > We hold the ext2 directory mutex, and ntfs_put_inode is trying to take an
> > ntfs i_mutex. Not a deadlock as such, but it could become one in ntfs if
> > ntfs ever does a __GFP_WAIT allocation inside i_mutex, which it surely
> > does.
>
> Though it should be using GFP_NOFS, right? So the dcache shrinker would
> not reenter the fs in that case.
Sort-of, arguably. Many years ago, holding i_mutex (i_sem) was considered
to be "in the fs" and one should use GFP_NOFS.
(This code dates from the ext2 directory-in-pagecache conversion - it's
2.4 stuff.)
It's better, of course, to use GFP_HIGHUSER for pagecache so we should aim
to get this working. And that means don't-take-i_mutex-on-the-reclaim-path.
We quite possibly are doing that in other places, too.
> I'm surprised ext2 is allocating with __GFP_FS set, though. Would that
> cause any problem?
It might, if ext2 takes i_mutex on the reclaim path. But it doesn't.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
