lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-19 08:33    [W:0.040 / U:0.764 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site