[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140904075010.GJ20473@dastard>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:50:10 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] ext4: change lru to round-robin in extent status
tree shrinker
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 04:00:39PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 05:31:22PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Also one question:
> >
> > > - if (ei == locked_ei || !write_trylock(&ei->i_es_lock)) {
> > > - nr_skipped++;
> > > - spin_lock(&sbi->s_es_lock);
> > > __ext4_es_list_add(sbi, ei);
> > > + if (spin_is_contended(&sbi->s_es_lock)) {
> > > + spin_unlock(&sbi->s_es_lock);
> > > + spin_lock(&sbi->s_es_lock);
> > > + }
> > Why not cond_resched_lock(&sbi->s_es_lock)?
>
> I didn't think we were allowed to reschedule or sleep while in
> shrinker context?
You are allowed to block shrinkers if there is no possibility of
deadlock. i.e. that's what the __GFP_FS flag check in filesystem
shrinkers is for - so that they only run in GFP_KERNEL context
and not GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO/GFP_ATOMIC context where blocking reclaim
can cause deadlocks...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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