Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Dave Chinner
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 12:21:24PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote: > On 09/03/2014 11:10 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:38:31AM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote: > >> Hi Jiufei, > >> > >> On 09/02/2014 05:03 PM, Xue jiufei wrote: > >>> Hi, Dave > >>> On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Junxiao Bi
On 09/03/2014 11:10 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:38:31AM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote: >> Hi Jiufei, >> >> On 09/02/2014 05:03 PM, Xue jiufei wrote: >>> Hi, Dave >>> On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: > The

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Xue jiufei
Hi Junxiao On 2014/9/3 9:38, Junxiao Bi wrote: > Hi Jiufei, > > On 09/02/2014 05:03 PM, Xue jiufei wrote: >> Hi, Dave >> On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Dave Chinner
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:38:31AM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote: > Hi Jiufei, > > On 09/02/2014 05:03 PM, Xue jiufei wrote: > > Hi, Dave > > On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: > >>> The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Xue jiufei
Hi, Dave On 2014/9/3 9:02, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:03:27PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: >> Hi, Dave >> On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Junxiao Bi
Hi Jiufei, On 09/02/2014 05:03 PM, Xue jiufei wrote: > Hi, Dave > On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: >>> The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster >>> fs, like ocfs2. And the problem may happen at least in the

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Dave Chinner
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:03:27PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: > Hi, Dave > On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: > >> The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster > >> fs, like ocfs2. And the problem may happen at

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Xue jiufei
Hi, Dave On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: >> The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster >> fs, like ocfs2. And the problem may happen at least in the below >> situations: >> 1)Receiving a connect message from

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Xue jiufei
Hi, Dave On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster fs, like ocfs2. And the problem may happen at least in the below situations: 1)Receiving a connect message from other

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Dave Chinner
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:03:27PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: Hi, Dave On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster fs, like ocfs2. And the problem may happen at least in the

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Junxiao Bi
Hi Jiufei, On 09/02/2014 05:03 PM, Xue jiufei wrote: Hi, Dave On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster fs, like ocfs2. And the problem may happen at least in the below

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Xue jiufei
Hi, Dave On 2014/9/3 9:02, Dave Chinner wrote: On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:03:27PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: Hi, Dave On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster fs, like ocfs2.

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Dave Chinner
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:38:31AM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote: Hi Jiufei, On 09/02/2014 05:03 PM, Xue jiufei wrote: Hi, Dave On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Xue jiufei
Hi Junxiao On 2014/9/3 9:38, Junxiao Bi wrote: Hi Jiufei, On 09/02/2014 05:03 PM, Xue jiufei wrote: Hi, Dave On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster fs, like ocfs2. And

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Junxiao Bi
On 09/03/2014 11:10 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:38:31AM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote: Hi Jiufei, On 09/02/2014 05:03 PM, Xue jiufei wrote: Hi, Dave On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: The patch trys to solve

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-02 Thread Dave Chinner
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 12:21:24PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote: On 09/03/2014 11:10 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:38:31AM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote: Hi Jiufei, On 09/02/2014 05:03 PM, Xue jiufei wrote: Hi, Dave On 2014/9/2 7:51, Dave Chinner wrote: On Fri, Aug 29,

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-01 Thread Dave Chinner
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: > The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster > fs, like ocfs2. And the problem may happen at least in the below > situations: > 1)Receiving a connect message from other nodes, node queues a > work_struct

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-01 Thread Xue jiufei
Hi Viro & Andraw Could you help review this patch? Thanks. xuejiufei On 2014/8/29 17:57, Xue jiufei wrote: > The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster > fs, like ocfs2. And the problem may happen at least in the below > situations: > 1)Receiving a connect message from other

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-01 Thread Xue jiufei
Hi Viro Andraw Could you help review this patch? Thanks. xuejiufei On 2014/8/29 17:57, Xue jiufei wrote: The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster fs, like ocfs2. And the problem may happen at least in the below situations: 1)Receiving a connect message from other

Re: [PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-09-01 Thread Dave Chinner
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:57:22PM +0800, Xue jiufei wrote: The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster fs, like ocfs2. And the problem may happen at least in the below situations: 1)Receiving a connect message from other nodes, node queues a work_struct o2net_listen_work.

[PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-08-29 Thread Xue jiufei
The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster fs, like ocfs2. And the problem may happen at least in the below situations: 1)Receiving a connect message from other nodes, node queues a work_struct o2net_listen_work. 2)o2net_wq processes this work and calls sock_alloc() to allocate

[PATCH] fs/super.c: do not shrink fs slab during direct memory reclaim

2014-08-29 Thread Xue jiufei
The patch trys to solve one deadlock problem caused by cluster fs, like ocfs2. And the problem may happen at least in the below situations: 1)Receiving a connect message from other nodes, node queues a work_struct o2net_listen_work. 2)o2net_wq processes this work and calls sock_alloc() to allocate