| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 05/14] xfs: fix missing KM_NOFS tags to keep lockdep happy |
| From: | Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 20 May 2013 16:16:07 -0500 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1369007481-15185-6-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1369007481-15185-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1369007481-15185-6-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 09:51:12AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> There are several places where we use KM_SLEEP allocation contexts
> and use the fact that there are called from transaction context to
they
(fixed)
> add KM_NOFS where appropriate.
I think you're referring to the usage of PF_FSTRANS and us clearing __GFP_FS in
kmem_flags_convert?
> Unfortunately, there are several
> places where the code makes this assumption but can be called from
> outside transaction context but with filesystem locks held. These
> places need explicit KM_NOFS annotations to avoid lockdep
> complaining about reclaim contexts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Looks good. In each case you added KM_NOFS where there was no transaction and
locks would have been held. Applied.
Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [XFS updates] XFS development tree branch, for-next, updated. for-linus-v3.10-rc1-2-14684-g52c24ad, xfs |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 06/14] xfs: xfs_da3_node_read_verify() doesn't handle XFS_ATTR3_LEAF_MAGIC, Ben Myers |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH 05/14] xfs: fix missing KM_NOFS tags to keep lockdep happy, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 05/14] xfs: fix missing KM_NOFS tags to keep lockdep happy, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |