[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45371B80.7060007@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:30:24 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC: "alpha @ steudten Engineering" <alpha@...udten.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:32:44 +1000
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>alpha @ steudten Engineering wrote:
>>
>>>=======================================================
>>>[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>>>2.6.18-1.2189self #1
>>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>>kswapd0/186 is trying to acquire lock:
>>> (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0326e32>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
>>>
>>>but task is already holding lock:
>>> (iprune_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0326e32>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
>>>
>>>which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>
>>Thanks. __grab_cache_page wants to clear __GFP_FS, because it is
>>holding the i_mutex so we don't want to reenter the filesystem in
>>page reclaim.
>
>
> We want to be able to enter page reclaim while holding i_mutex. Think what
> the effect of not doing this would be upon write() (!)
>
> This warning is more fallout from ntfs's insistence on taking i_mutex in
> its clear_inode(). See lengthy and unproductive discussion at
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/26/185 .
Yeah you're right. It will be a hot allocation + reclaim path for high
bandwidth writes.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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