From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: JFS Discussion <jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>,
fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH: 2.6.20-rc4-mm1] JFS: Avoid deadlock introduced by explicit I/O plugging
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:18:47 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070117231847.GH3508@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1169074549.10560.10.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com>
On Wed, Jan 17 2007, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> Jens,
> Can you please take a look at this patch, and if you think it's sane,
> add it to your explicit i/o plugging patchset? Would it make sense in
> any of these paths to use io_schedule() instead of schedule()?
I'm glad you bring that up, actually. One of the "downsides" of the new
unplugging is that it really requires anyone waiting for IO in a path
like the file system or device driver to use io_schedule() instead of
schedule() to get the blk_replug_current_nested() done to avoid
deadlocks. While it is annoying that it could introduce some deadlocks
until we get things fixed it, I do consider it a correctness fix even in
the generic kernel, as you are really waiting for IO and as such should
use io_schedule() in the first place.
Perhaps I should add a WARN_ON() check for this to catch these bugs
upfront.
> I hadn't looked at your patchset until I discovered that jfs was easy to
> hang in the -mm kernel. I think jfs may be able to add explicit
> plugging and unplugging in a couple of places, but I'd like to fix the
> hang right away and take my time with any later patches.
Can you try io_schedule() and verify that things just work?
--
Jens Axboe
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
JFS Discussion <jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH: 2.6.20-rc4-mm1] JFS: Avoid deadlock introduced by explicit I/O plugging
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:18:47 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070117231847.GH3508@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1169074549.10560.10.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com>
On Wed, Jan 17 2007, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> Jens,
> Can you please take a look at this patch, and if you think it's sane,
> add it to your explicit i/o plugging patchset? Would it make sense in
> any of these paths to use io_schedule() instead of schedule()?
I'm glad you bring that up, actually. One of the "downsides" of the new
unplugging is that it really requires anyone waiting for IO in a path
like the file system or device driver to use io_schedule() instead of
schedule() to get the blk_replug_current_nested() done to avoid
deadlocks. While it is annoying that it could introduce some deadlocks
until we get things fixed it, I do consider it a correctness fix even in
the generic kernel, as you are really waiting for IO and as such should
use io_schedule() in the first place.
Perhaps I should add a WARN_ON() check for this to catch these bugs
upfront.
> I hadn't looked at your patchset until I discovered that jfs was easy to
> hang in the -mm kernel. I think jfs may be able to add explicit
> plugging and unplugging in a couple of places, but I'd like to fix the
> hang right away and take my time with any later patches.
Can you try io_schedule() and verify that things just work?
--
Jens Axboe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-17 23:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-17 22:55 [PATCH: 2.6.20-rc4-mm1] JFS: Avoid deadlock introduced by explicit I/O plugging Dave Kleikamp
2007-01-17 23:18 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2007-01-17 23:18 ` Jens Axboe
2007-01-17 23:39 ` Dave Kleikamp
2007-01-17 23:46 ` Jens Axboe
2007-01-18 3:23 ` Dave Kleikamp
2007-01-18 6:30 ` Josef Sipek
2007-01-18 6:30 ` Josef Sipek
2007-01-18 14:15 ` Dave Kleikamp
2007-01-18 14:15 ` Dave Kleikamp
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070117231847.GH3508@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.