On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:37:46AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 02:58:21PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On 4/16/12 2:49 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > >
> > >flush request is issued in transaction commit code path usually, so
> > >looks using
> > >GFP_KERNEL to allocate memory for flush request bio falls into the classic
> > >deadlock issue (memory reclaim recursion). Use GFP_NOFS to avoid recursion
> > >from reclaim context. Per Dave Chinner, there is only blkdev_issue_flush
> > >might
> > >be buggy here. But using GFP_NOFS by default for all calls should not
> > >matter.
>
> Can you update the commit message like I suggested previously?
Copied exactly.
Issuing a block device flush request in transaction context using GFP_KERNEL
directly can cause deadlocks due to memory reclaim recursion. Use GFP_NOFS to
avoid recursion from reclaim context.
Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
---
fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c 2012-04-13 10:08:26.095496072 +0800
+++ linux/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c 2012-04-13 10:08:42.555496865 +0800
@@ -622,7 +622,7 @@ void
xfs_blkdev_issue_flush(
xfs_buftarg_t *buftarg)
{
- blkdev_issue_flush(buftarg->bt_bdev, GFP_KERNEL, NULL);
+ blkdev_issue_flush(buftarg->bt_bdev, GFP_NOFS, NULL);
}
STATIC void
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
