From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
djwong@kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, logfs@logfs.org,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] xfs: use memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} instead of memalloc_noio*
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:17:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170207071724.GA3022@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170206225150.GB12125@dastard>
On Tue 07-02-17 09:51:50, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 07:47:43PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 06-02-17 10:32:37, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
[...]
> > > I prefer to keep the "...yet we are likely to be under GFP_NOFS..."
> > > wording of the old comment because it captures the uncertainty of
> > > whether or not we actually are already under NOFS. If someone actually
> > > has audited this code well enough to know for sure then yes let's change
> > > the comment, but I haven't gone that far.
> >
> > I believe we can drop the memalloc_nofs_save then as well because either
> > we are called from a potentially dangerous context and thus we are in
> > the nofs scope we we do not need the protection at all.
>
> No, absolutely not. "Belief" is not a sufficient justification for
> removing low level deadlock avoidance infrastructure. This code
> needs to remain in _xfs_buf_map_pages() until a full audit of the
> caller paths is done and we're 100% certain that there are no
> lurking deadlocks.
Exactly. I was actually refering to "If someone actually has audited
this code" above... So I definitely do not want to justify anything
based on the belief
> For example, I'm pretty sure we can call into _xfs_buf_map_pages()
> outside of a transaction context but with an inode ILOCK held
> exclusively. If we then recurse into memory reclaim and try to run a
> transaction during reclaim, we have an inverted ILOCK vs transaction
> locking order. i.e. we are not allowed to call xfs_trans_reserve()
> with an ILOCK held as that can deadlock the log: log full, locked
> inode pins tail of log, inode cannot be flushed because ILOCK is
> held by caller waiting for log space to become available....
>
> i.e. there are certain situations where holding a ILOCK is a
> deadlock vector. See xfs_lock_inodes() for an example of the lengths
> we go to avoid ILOCK based log deadlocks like this...
Thanks for the reference. This is really helpful!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-07 7:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-06 14:07 [PATCH 0/6 v4] scope GFP_NOFS api Michal Hocko
2017-02-06 14:07 ` [PATCH 1/6] lockdep: allow to disable reclaim lockup detection Michal Hocko
2017-02-06 14:26 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-02-06 14:34 ` Michal Hocko
2017-02-06 15:24 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-02-06 15:30 ` Michal Hocko
2017-02-06 14:07 ` [PATCH 2/6] xfs: abstract PF_FSTRANS to PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS Michal Hocko
2017-02-06 14:07 ` [PATCH 3/6] mm: introduce memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} API Michal Hocko
2017-02-06 14:07 ` [PATCH 4/6] xfs: use memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} instead of memalloc_noio* Michal Hocko
2017-02-06 15:39 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-02-06 17:44 ` Michal Hocko
2017-02-06 18:32 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-02-06 18:47 ` Michal Hocko
2017-02-06 19:51 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-02-06 21:18 ` Michal Hocko
2017-02-06 22:51 ` Dave Chinner
2017-02-07 7:17 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-02-06 14:07 ` [PATCH 5/6] jbd2: mark the transaction context with the scope GFP_NOFS context Michal Hocko
2017-02-06 14:07 ` [PATCH 6/6] jbd2: make the whole kjournald2 kthread NOFS safe Michal Hocko
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=20170207071724.GA3022@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=cluster-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-afs@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=logfs@logfs.org \
--cc=reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).