On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 06:13:51AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 07:25:50PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > Basically the above commit moved xfs_ilock() inside > > > radix_tree_preload()/radix_tree_preload_end(), which means we are > > > taking a rwsem() while we have an elevated preempt count. I'll > > > get a patch out to fix it. > > This really needs a warning. Then again I don't really understand this > as the point of radix_tree_preload was that we can do the actual > radix-tree under a lock, or not? Right - the preload allows us to do GFP_KERNEL allocations for radix tree nodes and use a spinlock for inserts into the tree. We could drop the preload stuff if we initialised the radix tree to use GFP_ATOMIC allocations for radix tree nodes, but that is more likely to lead to insert failures under low memory conditions compared to the preload method. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
