From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEED17CA2 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:29:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 719BEAC005 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id DoOADddo1mTSo9b9 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:29:25 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: xfs_inode_free() isn't RCU safe Message-ID: <20160412232925.GN567@dastard> References: <0A92B65A3BF94F60BB36EA3FA716DF1F@alyakaslap> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0A92B65A3BF94F60BB36EA3FA716DF1F@alyakaslap> 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: Alex Lyakas Cc: bbice@sgi.com, Shyam Kaushik , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:56:35AM +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote: > Hello Dave, > > Looking at the patch, I see that now we call xfs_idestroy_fork() in RCU callback. This can do the following chain: > > xfs_iext_destroy => xfs_iext_irec_remove => xfs_iext_realloc_indirect=> kmem_realloc => kmem_alloc => kmem_alloc => congestion_wait() > > At least according to documentation, the RCU callback cannot block, since it may be called from softirq context. Is this fine? Right, I forgot about that. Too many forests. I'll reconstruct your patch from the email you appended it to previously and add that to the series to test against. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs