[7/8] Revert "ext4: avoid deadlocks in the writeback path by using sb_getblk_gfp"
diff mbox

Message ID 20170106141107.23953-8-mhocko@kernel.org
State Not Applicable
Headers show

Commit Message

Michal Hocko Jan. 6, 2017, 2:11 p.m. UTC
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

This reverts commit c45653c341f5c8a0ce19c8f0ad4678640849cb86 because
sb_getblk_gfp is not really needed as
sb_getblk
  __getblk_gfp
    __getblk_slow
      grow_buffers
        grow_dev_page
	  gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_constraint(inode->i_mapping, ~__GFP_FS) | gfp

so __GFP_FS is cleared unconditionally and therefore the above commit
didn't have any real effect in fact.

This patch should not introduce any functional change. The main point
of this change is to reduce explicit GFP_NOFS usage inside ext4 code to
make the review of the remaining usage easier.

Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
 fs/ext4/extents.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Theodore Y. Ts'o Jan. 17, 2017, 3:01 a.m. UTC | #1
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> 
> This reverts commit c45653c341f5c8a0ce19c8f0ad4678640849cb86 because
> sb_getblk_gfp is not really needed as
> sb_getblk
>   __getblk_gfp
>     __getblk_slow
>       grow_buffers
>         grow_dev_page
> 	  gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_constraint(inode->i_mapping, ~__GFP_FS) | gfp
> 
> so __GFP_FS is cleared unconditionally and therefore the above commit
> didn't have any real effect in fact.
> 
> This patch should not introduce any functional change. The main point
> of this change is to reduce explicit GFP_NOFS usage inside ext4 code to
> make the review of the remaining usage easier.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

If I'm not mistaken, this patch is not dependent on any of the other
patches in this series (and the other patches are not dependent on
this one).  Hence, I could take this patch via the ext4 tree, correct?

     	    	     	   	     - Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Michal Hocko Jan. 17, 2017, 7:54 a.m. UTC | #2
On Mon 16-01-17 22:01:18, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > 
> > This reverts commit c45653c341f5c8a0ce19c8f0ad4678640849cb86 because
> > sb_getblk_gfp is not really needed as
> > sb_getblk
> >   __getblk_gfp
> >     __getblk_slow
> >       grow_buffers
> >         grow_dev_page
> > 	  gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_constraint(inode->i_mapping, ~__GFP_FS) | gfp
> > 
> > so __GFP_FS is cleared unconditionally and therefore the above commit
> > didn't have any real effect in fact.
> > 
> > This patch should not introduce any functional change. The main point
> > of this change is to reduce explicit GFP_NOFS usage inside ext4 code to
> > make the review of the remaining usage easier.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, this patch is not dependent on any of the other
> patches in this series (and the other patches are not dependent on
> this one).  Hence, I could take this patch via the ext4 tree, correct?

Yes, that is correct
Michal Hocko March 6, 2017, 11:59 a.m. UTC | #3
On Tue 17-01-17 08:54:50, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-01-17 22:01:18, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > > 
> > > This reverts commit c45653c341f5c8a0ce19c8f0ad4678640849cb86 because
> > > sb_getblk_gfp is not really needed as
> > > sb_getblk
> > >   __getblk_gfp
> > >     __getblk_slow
> > >       grow_buffers
> > >         grow_dev_page
> > > 	  gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_constraint(inode->i_mapping, ~__GFP_FS) | gfp
> > > 
> > > so __GFP_FS is cleared unconditionally and therefore the above commit
> > > didn't have any real effect in fact.
> > > 
> > > This patch should not introduce any functional change. The main point
> > > of this change is to reduce explicit GFP_NOFS usage inside ext4 code to
> > > make the review of the remaining usage easier.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > 
> > If I'm not mistaken, this patch is not dependent on any of the other
> > patches in this series (and the other patches are not dependent on
> > this one).  Hence, I could take this patch via the ext4 tree, correct?
> 
> Yes, that is correct

Hi Ted,
this doesn't seem to be in any of the branches [1]. I plan to resend the
whole scope nofs series, should I add this to the pile or you are going
to route it via your tree?

[1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git

Patch
diff mbox

diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index 3e295d3350a9..9867b9e5ad8f 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -518,7 +518,7 @@  __read_extent_tree_block(const char *function, unsigned int line,
 	struct buffer_head		*bh;
 	int				err;
 
-	bh = sb_getblk_gfp(inode->i_sb, pblk, __GFP_MOVABLE | GFP_NOFS);
+	bh = sb_getblk(inode->i_sb, pblk);
 	if (unlikely(!bh))
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
@@ -1096,7 +1096,7 @@  static int ext4_ext_split(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
 		err = -EFSCORRUPTED;
 		goto cleanup;
 	}
-	bh = sb_getblk_gfp(inode->i_sb, newblock, __GFP_MOVABLE | GFP_NOFS);
+	bh = sb_getblk(inode->i_sb, newblock);
 	if (unlikely(!bh)) {
 		err = -ENOMEM;
 		goto cleanup;
@@ -1290,7 +1290,7 @@  static int ext4_ext_grow_indepth(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
 	if (newblock == 0)
 		return err;
 
-	bh = sb_getblk_gfp(inode->i_sb, newblock, __GFP_MOVABLE | GFP_NOFS);
+	bh = sb_getblk(inode->i_sb, newblock);
 	if (unlikely(!bh))
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	lock_buffer(bh);