[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHQdGtRXhUi+=akuASUWo-tYy0YCWJtUts6fqGnA62fo1Jf5tA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:23:45 -0400
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>
To: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
Cc: Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] nfs: avoid swap-over-NFS deadlock
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Lockdep warns about a inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} ->
> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage. The culpritt is the inode->i_mutex taken in
> nfs_file_direct_write(). This code was introduced by commit a9ab5e840669
> ("nfs: page cache invalidation for dio").
> This naive test patch avoid to take the mutex on a swapfile and makes
> lockdep happy again. However I don't know much about NFS code and I
> assume it's probably not the proper solution. Any thought?
>
> Signed-off-by: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
NFS is not the only O_DIRECT implementation to set the inode->i_mutex.
Why can't this be fixed in the generic swap code instead of adding
yet-another-exception-for-IS_SWAPFILE?
Cheers
Trond
--
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