|
@@ -1407,20 +1407,14 @@ repeat:
|
|
|
if (sbinfo->max_blocks) {
|
|
|
if (percpu_counter_compare(&sbinfo->used_blocks,
|
|
|
sbinfo->max_blocks) >= 0 ||
|
|
|
- shmem_acct_block(info->flags)) {
|
|
|
- spin_unlock(&info->lock);
|
|
|
- error = -ENOSPC;
|
|
|
- goto failed;
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
+ shmem_acct_block(info->flags))
|
|
|
+ goto nospace;
|
|
|
percpu_counter_inc(&sbinfo->used_blocks);
|
|
|
spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
|
|
|
inode->i_blocks += BLOCKS_PER_PAGE;
|
|
|
spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
|
|
|
- } else if (shmem_acct_block(info->flags)) {
|
|
|
- spin_unlock(&info->lock);
|
|
|
- error = -ENOSPC;
|
|
|
- goto failed;
|
|
|
- }
|
|
|
+ } else if (shmem_acct_block(info->flags))
|
|
|
+ goto nospace;
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!filepage) {
|
|
|
int ret;
|
|
@@ -1500,6 +1494,24 @@ done:
|
|
|
error = 0;
|
|
|
goto out;
|
|
|
|
|
|
+nospace:
|
|
|
+ /*
|
|
|
+ * Perhaps the page was brought in from swap between find_lock_page
|
|
|
+ * and taking info->lock? We allow for that at add_to_page_cache_lru,
|
|
|
+ * but must also avoid reporting a spurious ENOSPC while working on a
|
|
|
+ * full tmpfs. (When filepage has been passed in to shmem_getpage, it
|
|
|
+ * is already in page cache, which prevents this race from occurring.)
|
|
|
+ */
|
|
|
+ if (!filepage) {
|
|
|
+ struct page *page = find_get_page(mapping, idx);
|
|
|
+ if (page) {
|
|
|
+ spin_unlock(&info->lock);
|
|
|
+ page_cache_release(page);
|
|
|
+ goto repeat;
|
|
|
+ }
|
|
|
+ }
|
|
|
+ spin_unlock(&info->lock);
|
|
|
+ error = -ENOSPC;
|
|
|
failed:
|
|
|
if (*pagep != filepage) {
|
|
|
unlock_page(filepage);
|