On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:17:26 +1000 NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:37:56 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:03:36PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > - /*
> > > - * Given that we do not allow direct reclaim to call us, we should
> > > - * never be called while in a filesystem transaction.
> > > - */
> > > - if (WARN_ON(current->flags & PF_FSTRANS))
> > > - goto redirty;
> > We still need to ensure this rule isn't broken. If it is, the
> > filesystem will silently deadlock in delayed allocation rather than
> > gracefully handle the problem with a warning....
> Hmm... that might be tricky. The 'new' PF_FSTRANS can definitely be set when
> xfs_vm_writepage is called and we really want the write to happen.
> I don't suppose there is any other way to detect if a transaction is
I've been thinking about this some more....
That code is in xfs_vm_writepage which is only called as ->writepage.
xfs never calls that directly so it could only possibly be called during
We know that doesn't happen, but if it does then PF_MEMALLOC would be set,
but PF_KSWAPD would not... and you already have a test for that.
How about every time we set PF_FSTRANS, we store the corresponding
xfs_trans_t in current->journal_info, and clear that field when PF_FSTRANS is
cleared. Then xfs_vm_writepage can test for current->journal_info being
That is the field that several other filesystems use to keep track of the
I don't know what xfs_trans_t we would use in xfs_bmapi_allocate_worker, but
I suspect you do :-)
Description: PGP signature