On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:51:05AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:00:51 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 04:49:41PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:25:20 +1000 Dave Chinner
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:03:37
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:00:51 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 04:49:41PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:25:20 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:03:37PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > __d_alloc can be called with i_mutex held,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 04:49:41PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:25:20 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:03:37PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > __d_alloc can be called with i_mutex held, so it is safer to
> > > use GFP_NOFS.
> > >
> > > lockdep reports
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:25:20 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:03:37PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > __d_alloc can be called with i_mutex held, so it is safer to
> > use GFP_NOFS.
> >
> > lockdep reports this can deadlock when loop-back NFS is in use,
> > as nfsd may be requir
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:03:37PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> __d_alloc can be called with i_mutex held, so it is safer to
> use GFP_NOFS.
>
> lockdep reports this can deadlock when loop-back NFS is in use,
> as nfsd may be required to write out for reclaim, and nfsd certainly
> takes i_mutex.
But
__d_alloc can be called with i_mutex held, so it is safer to
use GFP_NOFS.
lockdep reports this can deadlock when loop-back NFS is in use,
as nfsd may be required to write out for reclaim, and nfsd certainly
takes i_mutex.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown
---
fs/dcache.c |4 ++--
1 file changed, 2
6 matches
Mail list logo