[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070713020529.1486491f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:05:29 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: cmm@...ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support
features in larger inode
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:32:47 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > + brelse(bh);
> > + up_write(&EXT4_I(inode)->xattr_sem);
> > + return error;
> > +}
> > +
>
> We're doing GFP_KERNEL memory allocations while holding xattr_sem. This
> can cause the VM to reenter the filesystem, perhaps taking i_mutex and/or
> i_truncate_sem and/or journal_start() (I forget whether this still
> happens). Have we checked whether this can occur and if so, whether we are
> OK from a lock ranking POV? Bear in mind that journalled-data mode is more
> complex in this regard.
I notice that everyone carefully avoided addressing this ;)
Oh well, hopefully people are testing with lockdep enabled. As long
as the fs is put under extreme memory pressure, most bugs should be reported.
Except lockdep doesn't know about journal_start(), which has ranking
requirements similar to a semaphore. Nor does it know about lock_page().
We already have hard-to-hit but deadlockable bugs in this area.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists