lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: sk_lock: inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage
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)

No, kswapd also sets the PF_MEMALLOC flag. It looks like btrfs_writepage()
is trying to avoid inefficient page outs at the cost of pinning dirty
pages in memory (even when we really want free pages).

Thanks,
Fengguang

> Can't nfs does similar hack?
>
>
> I'm not net nor nfs expert. perhaps I'm wrong :-)
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-09 05:17    [W:0.083 / U:0.844 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site