lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: sk_lock: inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage
    Date
    > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 12:55:18PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
    > > Hi
    > >
    > > > Hi,
    > > >
    > > > This lockdep warning appears when doing stress memory tests over NFS.
    > > >
    > > > page reclaim => nfs_writepage => tcp_sendmsg => lock sk_lock
    > > >
    > > > tcp_close => lock sk_lock => tcp_send_fin => alloc_skb_fclone => page reclaim
    > > >
    > > > Any ideas?
    > >
    > > AFAIK, btrfs has re-dirty hack.
    > >
    > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > static int btrfs_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc)
    > > {
    > > struct extent_io_tree *tree;
    > >
    > >
    > > if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) {
    > > redirty_page_for_writepage(wbc, page);
    > > unlock_page(page);
    > > return 0;
    > > }
    > > tree = &BTRFS_I(page->mapping->host)->io_tree;
    > > return extent_write_full_page(tree, page, btrfs_get_extent, wbc);
    > > }
    > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
    > >
    > > PF_MEMALLOC mean caller is try_to_free_pages(). (not normal write nor kswapd)
    > > Can't nfs does similar hack?
    >
    > But the trace shows that current is kswapd:
    >
    > [ 1638.403414] [<ffffffff811c9b69>] nfs_flush_one+0xb9/0x100
    > [ 1638.419417] [<ffffffff811c3f82>] nfs_pageio_doio+0x32/0x70
    > [ 1638.419417] [<ffffffff811c3fc9>] nfs_pageio_complete+0x9/0x10
    > [ 1638.427413] [<ffffffff811c7ee5>] nfs_writepage_locked+0x85/0xc0
    > [ 1638.435414] [<ffffffff811c8509>] nfs_writepage+0x19/0x40
    > [ 1638.435414] [<ffffffff810ce005>] shrink_page_list+0x675/0x810
    > [ 1638.435414] [<ffffffff810ce761>] shrink_list+0x301/0x650
    > [ 1638.435414] [<ffffffff810ced23>] shrink_zone+0x273/0x370
    > [ 1638.435414] [<ffffffff810cf9f9>] kswapd+0x729/0x7a0
    > [ 1638.435414] [<ffffffff810666de>] kthread+0x9e/0xb0
    > [ 1638.435414] [<ffffffff8100d0ca>] child_rip+0xa/0x20

    kswapd can't hold sk-lock before calling reclaim. Thus, we don't need
    care its bogus warning, I think.






    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-06-08 07:11    [W:2.730 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site