Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:32:44 +1000
Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
alpha @ steudten Engineering wrote:
=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.18-1.2189self #1
-------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/186 is trying to acquire lock:
(&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0326e32>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
but task is already holding lock:
(iprune_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0326e32>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
which lock already depends on the new lock.
Thanks. __grab_cache_page wants to clear __GFP_FS, because it is
holding the i_mutex so we don't want to reenter the filesystem in
page reclaim.
We want to be able to enter page reclaim while holding i_mutex. Think what
the effect of not doing this would be upon write() (!)
This warning is more fallout from ntfs's insistence on taking i_mutex in
its clear_inode(). See lengthy and unproductive discussion at
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/26/185 .
Yeah you're right. It will be a hot allocation + reclaim path for high
bandwidth writes.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
