direct reclaim doesn't write out filesystem page, only kswapd could do
this. So, if it is called from direct relaim, it is definitely a bug.
And, Mel Gorman mentioned "Ultimately, this will be a BUG_ON." in commit
94054fa3fca1fd78db02cb3d68d5627120f0a1d4 ("xfs: warn if direct reclaim
tries to writeback pages"),
It has been many years since that commit, so it should be safe to
elevate WARN_ON to BUG_ON now.
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
index 8eb3ba3..7efc2d2 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
@@ -1080,11 +1080,9 @@ static inline int xfs_bio_add_buffer(struct bio *bio, struct buffer_head *bh)
* allow reclaim from kswapd as the stack usage there is relatively low.
*
* This should never happen except in the case of a VM regression so
- * warn about it.
+ * BUG about it.
*/
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE((current->flags & (PF_MEMALLOC|PF_KSWAPD)) ==
- PF_MEMALLOC))
- goto redirty;
+ BUG_ON((current->flags & (PF_MEMALLOC|PF_KSWAPD)) == PF_MEMALLOC);
/*
* Given that we do not allow direct reclaim to call us, we should
--
1.8.3.1
