Jan Kara: > This is not the right way how memalloc_nofs_save() should be used (you > could just use GFP_NOFS instead of GFP_KERNEL instead of wrapping the > allocation inside memalloc_nofs_save/restore()). The > memalloc_nofs_save/restore() API is created so that you can change the > allocation context at the place which mandates the new context - i.e., in > this case when acquiring / dropping xattr_sem. That way you don't have to > propagate the context information down to function calls and the code is > also future-proof - if you add new allocation, they will use correct > allocation context. Thanks for the lecture about memalloc_nofs_save/restore(). Honestly speaking, I didn't know these APIs and I always use GFP_NOFS flag. Investigating this lockdep warning, I read the comments in gfp.h. * %GFP_NOFS will use direct reclaim but will not use any filesystem interfaces. * Please try to avoid using this flag directly and instead use * memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} to mark the whole scope which cannot/shouldn't * recurse into the FS layer with a short explanation why. All allocation * requests will inherit GFP_NOFS implicitly. Actually grep-ping the whole kernel source tree told me there are several "one-liners" like ...nofs_save(); kmalloc(); ...nofs_restore sequence. But re-reading the comments and your mail, I understand these APIs are for much wider region than such one-liner. I don't think it a good idea that I send you another patch replaced by GFP_NOFS. You can fix it simply and you know much more than me about this matter, and I will be satisfied when this problem is fixed by you. J. R. Okajima