From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o4PAUvTQ241662 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 05:30:57 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D23D836D444 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 03:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id XbaElF4hN9Sx09Cz for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 03:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 06:33:17 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH (resend)] xfs: don't allow recursion into fs under write_begin Message-ID: <20100525103317.GB2864@infradead.org> References: <4BF8056E.8080900@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BF8056E.8080900@sandeen.net> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-mm@kvack.org, Michael Monnerie , xfs-oss On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:25:18AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Michael Monnerie reported this fantastic stack overflow: > I don't think we can afford to let write_begin recurse into the fs, > so we can set AOP_FLAG_NOFS ... is this too big a hammer? I don't really like it. There's nothing XFS-specific here - it's the same problem with direct reclaim calling back into the FS and causing massive amounts of problems. If we want to fix this class of problems we just need to do the same thing ext4 and btrfs already do and refuse to call the allocator from reclaim context. Just curious, how much stack does the path up to generic_perform_write use? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs