On Mon 06-02-17 07:39:23, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:07:16PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
quoted
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
@@ -442,17 +442,17 @@ _xfs_buf_map_pages(
bp->b_addr = NULL;
} else {
int retried = 0;
- unsigned noio_flag;
+ unsigned nofs_flag;
/*
* vm_map_ram() will allocate auxillary structures (e.g.
* pagetables) with GFP_KERNEL, yet we are likely to be under
* GFP_NOFS context here. Hence we need to tell memory reclaim
- * that we are in such a context via PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO to prevent
+ * that we are in such a context via PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS to prevent
* memory reclaim re-entering the filesystem here and
* potentially deadlocking.
*/
This comment feels out of date ... how about:
which part is out of date?
/*
* vm_map_ram will allocate auxiliary structures (eg page
* tables) with GFP_KERNEL. If that tries to reclaim memory
* by calling back into this filesystem, we may deadlock.
* Prevent that by setting the NOFS flag.
*/
dunno, the previous wording seems clear enough to me. Maybe little bit
more chatty than yours but I am not sure this is worth changing.
quoted
- noio_flag = memalloc_noio_save();
+ nofs_flag = memalloc_nofs_save();
do {
bp->b_addr = vm_map_ram(bp->b_pages, bp->b_page_count,
-1, PAGE_KERNEL);
Also, I think it shows that this is the wrong place in XFS to be calling
memalloc_nofs_save(). I'm not arguing against including this patch;
it's a step towards where we want to be. I also don't know XFS well
enough to know where to set that flag ;-) Presumably when we start a
transaction ... ?
Yes that is what I would like to achieve longterm. And the reason why I
didn't want to mimic this pattern in kvmalloc as some have suggested.
It just takes much more time to get there from the past experience and
we should really start somewhere.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>