On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:37:59AM -0400, Peter Watkins wrote: > Greetings, > > I think I've hit another case when reclaim recurses into xfs and deadlocks. > > The system was under memory pressure and an fsync() call sent xfs into > reclaim which blocked on the prune_icache mutex while holding an xfs > inode buffer lock. Another thread, also in reclaim, held the > prune_icache mutex but needed that xfs inode buffer lock to make > progress. > > Perhaps _xfs_trans_alloc should not recurse into the filesystem if its > allocation goes into reclaim? Should it say: > > tp = kmem_zone_zalloc(xfs_trans_zone, KM_SLEEP|KM_NOFS); > > I'll send a proposed patch in a second. (I'm on 2.6.27, but the patch > will be against latest) My patch "prune back iprune_sem" which landed in Linux 2.6.39 as commit bab1d9444d9a147f1dc3478dd06c16f490227f3e should fix that at the VFS level. I'm not sure how 2.6.27 looks in that area, but a lot of things have changed so a backport might not be trivial. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
