From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B967F3F for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 19:09:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22C8304032 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id CkJf7bO29qvknGQ1 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:08:37 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/14] xfs: fix missing KM_NOFS tags to keep lockdep happy Message-ID: <20130521000837.GH24543@dastard> References: <1369007481-15185-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1369007481-15185-6-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20130520211607.GC20028@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130520211607.GC20028@sgi.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Ben Myers Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 04:16:07PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 09:51:12AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner > > > > There are several places where we use KM_SLEEP allocation contexts > > and use the fact that there are called from transaction context to > they > > (fixed) > > > add KM_NOFS where appropriate. > > I think you're referring to the usage of PF_FSTRANS and us clearing __GFP_FS in > kmem_flags_convert? Yes. > > Unfortunately, there are several > > places where the code makes this assumption but can be called from > > outside transaction context but with filesystem locks held. These > > places need explicit KM_NOFS annotations to avoid lockdep > > complaining about reclaim contexts. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner > > Looks good. In each case you added KM_NOFS where there was no transaction and > locks would have been held. Applied. > > Reviewed-by: Ben Myers Thanks. -Dave -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs