[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20060727002432.0f0c14a5.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:24:32 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: eike-kernel@...tec.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
aia21@...tab.net
Subject: Re: [BUG?] possible recursive locking detected
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:51:29 +1000
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> > We hold the ext2 directory mutex, and ntfs_put_inode is trying to take an
> > ntfs i_mutex. Not a deadlock as such, but it could become one in ntfs if
> > ntfs ever does a __GFP_WAIT allocation inside i_mutex, which it surely
> > does.
>
> Though it should be using GFP_NOFS, right? So the dcache shrinker would
> not reenter the fs in that case.
Sort-of, arguably. Many years ago, holding i_mutex (i_sem) was considered
to be "in the fs" and one should use GFP_NOFS.
(This code dates from the ext2 directory-in-pagecache conversion - it's
2.4 stuff.)
It's better, of course, to use GFP_HIGHUSER for pagecache so we should aim
to get this working. And that means don't-take-i_mutex-on-the-reclaim-path.
We quite possibly are doing that in other places, too.
> I'm surprised ext2 is allocating with __GFP_FS set, though. Would that
> cause any problem?
It might, if ext2 takes i_mutex on the reclaim path. But it doesn't.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists