[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091124194532.AFC2.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:46:25 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...ia.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
"Bityutskiy Artem (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] nandsim: Don't use PF_MEMALLOC
Hi
Thank you for this useful comments.
> > I vaguely remember Adrian (CCed) did this on purpose. This is for the
> > case when nandsim emulates NAND flash on top of a file. So there are 2
> > file-systems involved: one sits on top of nandsim (e.g. UBIFS) and the
> > other owns the file which nandsim uses (e.g., ext3).
> >
> > And I really cannot remember off the top of my head why he needed
> > PF_MEMALLOC, but I think Adrian wanted to prevent the direct reclaim
> > path to re-enter, say UBIFS, and cause deadlock. But I'd thing that all
> > the allocations in vfs_read()/vfs_write() should be GFP_NOFS, so that
> > should not be a probelm?
> >
>
> Yes it needs PF_MEMALLOC to prevent deadlock because there can be a
> file system on top of nandsim which, in this case, is on top of another
> file system.
>
> I do not see how mempools will help here.
>
> Please offer an alternative solution.
I have few questions.
Can you please explain more detail? Another stackable filesystam
(e.g. ecryptfs) don't have such problem. Why nandsim have its issue?
What lock cause deadlock?
--
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