[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170118082910.GD7015@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 09:29:10 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, djwong@...nel.org,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, logfs@...fs.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ntfs-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"
On Tue 17-01-17 14:04:03, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2017, at 8:59 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:18:17PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>
> >> OK, so I've been staring into the code and AFAIU current->journal_info
> >> can contain my stored information. I could either hijack part of the
> >> word as the ref counting is only consuming low 12b. But that looks too
> >> ugly to live. Or I can allocate some placeholder.
> >
> > Yeah, I was looking at something similar. Can you guarantee that the
> > context will only take one or two bits? (Looks like it only needs one
> > bit ATM, even though at the moment you're storing the whole GFP mask,
> > correct?)
> >
> >> But before going to play with that I am really wondering whether we need
> >> all this with no journal at all. AFAIU what Jack told me it is the
> >> journal lock(s) which is the biggest problem from the reclaim recursion
> >> point of view. What would cause a deadlock in no journal mode?
> >
> > We still have the original problem for why we need GFP_NOFS even in
> > ext2. If we are in a writeback path, and we need to allocate memory,
> > we don't want to recurse back into the file system's writeback path.
> > Certainly not for the same inode, and while we could make it work if
> > the mm was writing back another inode, or another superblock, there
> > are also stack depth considerations that would make this be a bad
> > idea. So we do need to be able to assert GFP_NOFS even in no journal
> > mode, and for any file system including ext2, for that matter.
> >
> > Because of the fact that we're going to have to play games with
> > current->journal_info, maybe this is something that I should take
> > responsibility for, and to go through the the ext4 tree after the main
> > patch series go through? Maybe you could use xfs and ext2 as sample
> > (simple) implementations?
> >
> > My only ask is that the memalloc nofs context be a well defined N
> > bits, where N < 16, and I'll find some place to put them (probably
> > journal_info).
>
> I think Dave was suggesting that the NOFS context allow a pointer to
> an arbitrary struct, so that it is possible to dereference this in
> the filesystem itself to determine if the recursion is safe or not.
Yes, but can we start with a simpler approach first? Even this approach
takes quite some time to be used.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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