On Mon 15-06-20 16:25:52, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On 2020-06-15 13:56, Yafang Shao wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
> > index b356118..1ccfbf2 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
> > @@ -573,9 +573,21 @@ static inline bool xfs_ioend_needs_workqueue(struct iomap_ioend *ioend)
> > struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > {
> > struct xfs_writepage_ctx wpc = { };
> > + unsigned int nofs_flag;
> > + int ret;
> > xfs_iflags_clear(XFS_I(mapping->host), XFS_ITRUNCATED);
> > - return iomap_writepages(mapping, wbc, &wpc.ctx, &xfs_writeback_ops);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * We can allocate memory here while doing writeback on behalf of
> > + * memory reclaim. To avoid memory allocation deadlocks set the
> > + * task-wide nofs context for the following operations.
> > + */
> > + nofs_flag = memalloc_nofs_save();
> > + ret = iomap_writepages(mapping, wbc, &wpc.ctx, &xfs_writeback_ops);
> > + memalloc_nofs_restore(nofs_flag);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > }
> > STATIC int
> >
>
> Not sure if I did something wrong, but while the previous version of this patch
> worked fine, this one gave me (with v2 removed obviously):
>
> [ +0.000004] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2811 at fs/iomap/buffered-io.c:1544 iomap_do_writepage+0x6b4/0x780
This corresponds to
/*
* Given that we do not allow direct reclaim to call us, we should
* never be called in a recursive filesystem reclaim context.
*/
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS))
goto redirty;
which effectivelly says that memalloc_nofs_save/restore cannot be used
for that code path. Your stack trace doesn't point to a reclaim path
which shows that this path is shared and also underlines that this is
not really an intended use of the api. Please refer to
Documentation/core-api/gfp_mask-from-fs-io.rst for more details but
shortly the API should be used at the layer which defines a context
which shouldn't allow to recurse. E.g. a lock which would be problematic
in the reclaim recursion path.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
