On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:23:46PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> 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
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
