From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 214E2C3DA59 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 05:50:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=ZFjS+6vF; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4WNSpV2lRkz3d8t for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:50:26 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=ZFjS+6vF; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com (client-ip=115.124.30.118; helo=out30-118.freemail.mail.aliyun.com; envelope-from=hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from out30-118.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-118.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.118]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4WNSpM1D1Kz2xQB for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:50:17 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1721109013; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=H8zq9naPob4y2i4lL8vhQLgKLKRADgCO3+XOJHZaf6Y=; b=ZFjS+6vFkldUkA8j3nlSwbGOYOQR51jQddm3qxHv1BwmERSuanmOo8hyc6JzZ1HHu5Y4eu23BIMHRRF14eFeLXUNb9++YmFM9dBEER2i6a89i/A1WVtX5eR5zlefWLvoxSI1OFZIFErYNy7Jbx1OL9ukNeajtBEcXUb2uA7UcoQ= X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R141e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=maildocker-contentspam033045046011;MF=hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=10;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0WAgKAfp_1721109010; Received: from 30.97.48.217(mailfrom:hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WAgKAfp_1721109010) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 13:50:11 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 13:50:10 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: fix schedule while atomic caused by gfp of erofs_allocpage To: "zhaoyang.huang" , Gao Xiang , Chao Yu , Yue Hu , Jeffle Xu , Sandeep Dhavale , linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zhaoyang Huang , steve.kang@unisoc.com References: <20240716054414.2446134-1-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> From: Gao Xiang In-Reply-To: <20240716054414.2446134-1-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Linux EROFS file system List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linux-erofs" On 2024/7/16 13:44, zhaoyang.huang wrote: > From: Zhaoyang Huang > > scheduling while atomic was reported as below where the schedule_timeout > comes from too_many_isolated when doing direct_reclaim. Fix this by > masking GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM from gfp. > > [ 175.610416][ T618] BUG: scheduling while atomic: kworker/u16:6/618/0x00000000 > [ 175.643480][ T618] CPU: 2 PID: 618 Comm: kworker/u16:6 Tainted: G > [ 175.645791][ T618] Workqueue: loop20 loop_workfn > [ 175.646394][ T618] Call trace: > [ 175.646785][ T618] dump_backtrace+0xf4/0x140 > [ 175.647345][ T618] show_stack+0x20/0x2c > [ 175.647846][ T618] dump_stack_lvl+0x60/0x84 > [ 175.648394][ T618] dump_stack+0x18/0x24 > [ 175.648895][ T618] __schedule_bug+0x64/0x90 > [ 175.649445][ T618] __schedule+0x680/0x9b8 > [ 175.649970][ T618] schedule+0x130/0x1b0 > [ 175.650470][ T618] schedule_timeout+0xac/0x1d0 > [ 175.651050][ T618] schedule_timeout_uninterruptible+0x24/0x34 > [ 175.651789][ T618] __alloc_pages_slowpath+0x8dc/0x121c > [ 175.652455][ T618] __alloc_pages+0x294/0x2fc > [ 175.653011][ T618] erofs_allocpage+0x48/0x58 > [ 175.653572][ T618] z_erofs_runqueue+0x314/0x8a4 > [ 175.654161][ T618] z_erofs_readahead+0x258/0x318 > [ 175.654761][ T618] read_pages+0x88/0x394 > [ 175.655275][ T618] page_cache_ra_unbounded+0x1cc/0x23c > [ 175.655939][ T618] page_cache_ra_order+0x27c/0x33c > [ 175.656559][ T618] ondemand_readahead+0x224/0x334 > [ 175.657169][ T618] page_cache_async_ra+0x60/0x9c > [ 175.657767][ T618] filemap_get_pages+0x19c/0x7cc > [ 175.658367][ T618] filemap_read+0xf0/0x484 > [ 175.658901][ T618] generic_file_read_iter+0x4c/0x15c > [ 175.659543][ T618] do_iter_read+0x224/0x348 > [ 175.660100][ T618] vfs_iter_read+0x24/0x38 > [ 175.660635][ T618] loop_process_work+0x408/0xa68 > [ 175.661236][ T618] loop_workfn+0x28/0x34 > [ 175.661751][ T618] process_scheduled_works+0x254/0x4e8 > [ 175.662417][ T618] worker_thread+0x24c/0x33c > [ 175.662974][ T618] kthread+0x110/0x1b8 > [ 175.663465][ T618] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 > > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang I don't see why it's an atomic context, so this patch is incorrect. Thanks, Gao Xiang