[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45b32195-3ed8-0242-68a2-10a1b6d29fe6@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 21:35:59 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] xfs: Fix false positive lockdep warning with
sb_internal & fs_reclaim
On 6/17/20 8:45 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 01:53:10PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> fs/xfs/xfs_log.c | 9 +++++++++
>> fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
>> index 00fda2e8e738..33244680d0d4 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
>> @@ -830,8 +830,17 @@ xlog_unmount_write(
>> xfs_lsn_t lsn;
>> uint flags = XLOG_UNMOUNT_TRANS;
>> int error;
>> + unsigned long pflags;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * xfs_log_reserve() allocates memory. This can lead to fs reclaim
>> + * which may conflicts with the unmount process. To avoid that,
>> + * disable fs reclaim for this allocation.
>> + */
>> + current_set_flags_nested(&pflags, PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS);
>> error = xfs_log_reserve(mp, 600, 1, &tic, XFS_LOG, 0);
>> + current_restore_flags_nested(&pflags, PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS);
>> +
>> if (error)
>> goto out_err;
> The more I look at this, the more I think Darrick is right and I
> somewhat misinterpretted what he meant by "the top of the freeze
> path".
>
> i.e. setting PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS here is out of place - only one caller
> of xlog_unmount_write requires PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS
> context. That context should be set in the caller that requires this
> context, and in this case it is xfs_fs_freeze(). This is top of the
> final freeze state processing (what I think Darrick meant), not the
> top of the freeze syscall call chain (what I thought he meant).
>
> So if set PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS setting in xfs_fs_freeze(), it covers all
> the allocations in this problematic path, and it should obliviates
> the need for the first patch in the series altogether.
>
OK, I will try that and run my test. If it pass, I will post a new patch
with the suggested change.
Thanks,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists