Lockdep warns about a inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} ->
{IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage. The culpritt is the inode->i_mutex taken in
nfs_file_direct_write(). This code was introduced by commit a9ab5e840669
("nfs: page cache invalidation for dio").
This naive test patch avoid to take the mutex on a swapfile and makes
lockdep happy again. However I don't know much about NFS code and I
assume it's probably not the proper solution. Any thought?
Signed-off-by: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/nfs/direct.c | 10 +++++++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/direct.c b/fs/nfs/direct.c
index 38678d9..42324d4 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/direct.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/direct.c
@@ -974,7 +974,9 @@ ssize_t nfs_file_direct_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
pos = iocb->ki_pos;
end = (pos + iov_iter_count(iter) - 1) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
- mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
+ /* Don't take the mutex while in reclaim_FS */
+ if (!IS_SWAPFILE(inode))
+ mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
result = nfs_sync_mapping(mapping);
if (result)
@@ -1014,7 +1016,8 @@ ssize_t nfs_file_direct_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
pos >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT, end);
}
- mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
+ if (!IS_SWAPFILE(inode))
+ mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
if (!result) {
result = nfs_direct_wait(dreq);
@@ -1035,7 +1038,8 @@ ssize_t nfs_file_direct_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
out_release:
nfs_direct_req_release(dreq);
out_unlock:
- mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
+ if (!IS_SWAPFILE(inode))
+ mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
return result;
}
--
1.9.3
--
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
