[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170306115915.GB27953@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 12:59:15 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, djwong@...nel.org,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
logfs@...fs.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ntfs-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] Revert "ext4: avoid deadlocks in the writeback path
by using sb_getblk_gfp"
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@...e.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@...e.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.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
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists