On Sep 8, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 18:05 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
Don't dive into memory reclaim in the NFS direct I/O paths, otherwise
we can deadlock.
Reported by: Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Fix-suggested-by: Zach Brown <zach.brown@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
Wait... What??? How does an O_DIRECT read or write allocation deadlock
with memory reclaim? Both the read and the write path call
nfs_direct_req_alloc() before they pin any user pages in memory.
This may be an issue only for loopback mounts where the backing device
is an NFS O_DIRECT file. This type of deadlock may not be able to
happen in upstream kernels at this point.
Even so, it makes sense for this allocation to be consistent with
similar allocations in the other NFS I/O paths.
Trond
---
Trond-
Thoughts?
fs/nfs/direct.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/direct.c b/fs/nfs/direct.c
index e4e089a..00f06b8 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/direct.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/direct.c
@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ static inline struct nfs_direct_req
*nfs_direct_req_alloc(void)
{
struct nfs_direct_req *dreq;
- dreq = kmem_cache_alloc(nfs_direct_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
+ dreq = kmem_cache_alloc(nfs_direct_cachep, GFP_NOFS);
if (!dreq)
return NULL;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-
nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
