On Fri 20-03-15 14:48:20, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:44:41PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Or did I miss your point? Are you concerned about some fs overloading > > filemap_fault and do some locking before delegating to filemap_fault? > > The latter: > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git/commit/?h=xfs-mmap-lock&id=de0e8c20ba3a65b0f15040aabbefdc1999876e6b Hmm. I am completely unfamiliar with the xfs code but my reading of 964aa8d9e4d3..723cac484733 is that the newly introduced lock should be OK from the reclaim recursion POV. It protects against truncate and punch hole, right? Or are there any internal paths which I am missing and would cause problems if we do GFP_FS with XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED held? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>