On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 03:58:34PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:17:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:42:25AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > From: Omar Sandoval
> > >
> > > While revisiting my Btrfs swapfile series [1], I introduced a s
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:17:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:42:25AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
> >
> > While revisiting my Btrfs swapfile series [1], I introduced a situation
> > in which reclaim would lock i_rwsem, and even though the swa
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:42:25AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval
>
> While revisiting my Btrfs swapfile series [1], I introduced a situation
> in which reclaim would lock i_rwsem, and even though the swapon() path
> clearly made GFP_KERNEL allocations while holding i_rwsem, I
From: Omar Sandoval
While revisiting my Btrfs swapfile series [1], I introduced a situation
in which reclaim would lock i_rwsem, and even though the swapon() path
clearly made GFP_KERNEL allocations while holding i_rwsem, I got no
complaints from lockdep. It turns out that the rework of the fs_re
4 matches
Mail list logo