On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 03:24:34PM -0400, 'Christoph Hellwig' wrote:
> Can you check if the brute force patch below helps? If it does I
> still need to refine it a bit, but it could be that we are doing
> an allocation under an xfs lock that could recurse back into the
> filesystem. We have a per-process flag to disable that for normal
> kmalloc allocation, but we lost it for vmalloc in the commit you
> bisected the regression to.
>
>
> Index: xfs/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/kmem.h
> ===================================================================
> --- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/kmem.h 2011-03-29 21:16:58.039224236 +0200
> +++ xfs/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/kmem.h 2011-03-29 21:17:08.368223598 +0200
> @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static inline void *kmem_zalloc_large(si
> {
> void *ptr;
>
> - ptr = vmalloc(size);
> + ptr = __vmalloc(size, GFP_NOFS | __GFP_HIGHMEM, PAGE_KERNEL);
> if (ptr)
> memset(ptr, 0, size);
> return ptr;
Note that vmalloc is currently broken in that it does a GFP_KERNEL
allocation if it has to allocate page table pages, even when invoked
with GFP_NOFS:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=128942194520631&w=4
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>