Scrub allocations vs reclaim fix
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest2 patches 3 repliesIn review
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
| # | Subject and files | Size | Replies | Applied |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/2 | btrfs: scrub: pass fs_info to scrub_setup_ctxfs/ | +4 | 1 reply | |
| 2/2 | btrfs: scrub: move scrub_setup_ctx allocation out of device_list_mutexfs/ | +18 | 2 replies |
Reviews trailers per patch
1 of 2 patches has a Reviewed-by or Acked-by.
| Patch | Nikolay Borisov |
|---|---|
| 1/2 | R-b |
| 2/2 |
Trailers given in replies are filled; those carried in the patches from earlier versions are outlined with dashes.
Cover letter [PATCH 0/2] Scrub allocations vs reclaim fix
I've instrumented the scrub alloctions to check for the GFP_NOFS context and whether the device_list_mutex is not held. This caught one allocation, and I've used the instrumented code to verify that Filipe's scrub/reclaim fix is correct.
There are some debugging helpers need that live in the generic code so I'm posting only results. The patches are in branch dev/locks-not-held in my devel repos.
David Sterba (2):
btrfs: scrub: pass fs_info to scrub_setup_ctx
btrfs: scrub: move scrub_setup_ctx allocation out of device_list_mutex
fs/btrfs/scrub.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
2.19.1