On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 00:43 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Have you seen the new launder_page() a_op? called from
> > invalidate_inode_pages2_range()
>
> It would have been nice to make that one into a more potentially
> useful generic callback.
That can still be done when the need arises, right?
> But why was it introduced, exactly? I can't tell from the code or
> the discussion why NFS couldn't start the IO, and signal the caller
> to wait_on_page_writeback and retry? That seemed to me like the
> convetional fix.
to quote a bit:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:19:38 -0500
Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote:
> NFS: Fix race in nfs_release_page()
>
> invalidate_inode_pages2() may set the dirty bit on a page owing to the call
> to unmap_mapping_range() after the page was locked. In order to fix this,
> NFS has hooked the releasepage() method. This, however leads to deadlocks
> in other parts of the VM.
and:
> > Now, arguably the VM shouldn't be calling try_to_release_page() with
> > __GFP_FS when it's holding a lock on a page.
> >
> > But otoh, NFS should never be running lock_page() within nfs_release_page()
> > against the page which was passed into nfs_release_page(). It'll deadlock
> > for sure.
>
> The reason why it is happening is that the last dirty page from that
> inode gets cleaned, resulting in a call to dput().
-
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]
