[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EF24758.5030704@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:53:44 -0600
From: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>,
Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: __read_cache_page should use gfp argument rather
than GFP_KERNEL
On 12/21/2011 02:28 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:05:48 -0600
> Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>> [ updated to remove now-obsolete comment in read_cache_page_gfp()]
>>
>> lockdep reports a deadlock in jfs because a special inode's rw semaphore
>> is taken recursively. The mapping's gfp mask is GFP_NOFS, but is not used
>> when __read_cache_page() calls add_to_page_cache_lru().
>
> Well hang on, it's not just a lockdep splat. The kernel actually will
> deadlock if we reenter JFS via this GFP_KERNEL allocation attempt, yes?
Yes, it could result in a real deadlock.
> Was that GFP_NOFS allocation recently added to JFS? If not then we
> should backport this deadlock fix into -stable, no?
Yes, that would make sense.
Shaggy
--
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