lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 27 Jul 2006 00:38:06 -0700
FromAndrew Morton <>
SubjectRe: [BUG?] possible recursive locking detected
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:15:27 +0100
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> > I'm surprised ext2 is allocating with __GFP_FS set, though. Would that
> > cause any problem?> > That is an ext2 bug IMO.

There is no bug.

What there is is an ill-defined set of rules.  If we want to tighten these
rules we have a choice between

a) Never enter page reclaim while holding i_mutex or

b) never take i_mutex on the page reclaim path.


Implementing a) would be a disaster.  It means that our main write()
implementation in mm/filemap.c (which holds i_mutex) wouldn't be able to
reclaim pages to satisfy the write.  And generally, we do want to use the
strongest memory allocation mode at all times.

So we'll have a better kernel if we implement b).
-
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 07:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2008