[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <0305C117-1099-49EA-B0F3-C0E31E18A19A@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:20:06 -0600
From: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
USB development list <linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@...hat.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] 2.6.20 kernel hang with USB drive and vfat doing ftruncate
>>>> Not that it'll help much: the VM calls throttle_vm_writeout()
>>>> for GFP_NOIO
>>>> and GFP_NOFS allocations, which is a bug. Because if the caller
>>>> holds
>>>> locks which prevent filesystem or IO progress, we deadlock.
>>>>
>>>> I'll fix the VM if someone else fixes USB ;)
>>>
>>> What else needs to be fixed?
>>
>> Would be nice if someone can confirm that this fixes it:
>
> Doesn't seem to help my problem in a quick test, will get more data
> in the morning.
Well, I didn't realize the patch you sent via mm-commits and the one
here are actually different. I noticed that mm-commits one has:
+ if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != __GFP_FS|__GFP_IO) {
vs
+ if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) {
The second seems to make more sense. I tested with the first last
night which didn't help.
With the proper patch in place things look good. Is this a candidate
for 2.6.20-stable?
- k
-
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