![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:51:29 +1000 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> 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 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-07-27 09:27 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||