[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090608134428.4373.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 13:55:18 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sk_lock: inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage
Hi
> Hi,
>
> This lockdep warning appears when doing stress memory tests over NFS.
>
> page reclaim => nfs_writepage => tcp_sendmsg => lock sk_lock
>
> tcp_close => lock sk_lock => tcp_send_fin => alloc_skb_fclone => page reclaim
>
> Any ideas?
AFAIK, btrfs has re-dirty hack.
------------------------------------------------------------------
static int btrfs_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc)
{
struct extent_io_tree *tree;
if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) {
redirty_page_for_writepage(wbc, page);
unlock_page(page);
return 0;
}
tree = &BTRFS_I(page->mapping->host)->io_tree;
return extent_write_full_page(tree, page, btrfs_get_extent, wbc);
}
---------------------------------------------------------------
PF_MEMALLOC mean caller is try_to_free_pages(). (not normal write nor kswapd)
Can't nfs does similar hack?
I'm not net nor nfs expert. perhaps I'm wrong :-)
Thanks.
--
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