Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:30:24 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:32:44 +1000 > Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> 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 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/
| |