[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180425165655.GK17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:56:55 -0600
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: vmalloc with GFP_NOFS
On Wed 25-04-18 11:25:09, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Wed 25-04-18 08:43:32, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue 24-04-18 19:17:12, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > So in a perfect world a filesystem calls memalloc_nofs_save/restore and
> > > > > > > always uses GFP_KERNEL for kmalloc/vmalloc?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exactly! And in a dream world those memalloc_nofs_save act as a
> > > > > > documentation of the reclaim recursion documentation ;)
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Michal Hocko
> > > > > > SUSE Labs
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW. should memalloc_nofs_save and memalloc_noio_save be merged into just
> > > > > one that prevents both I/O and FS recursion?
> > > >
> > > > Why should FS usage stop IO altogether?
> > >
> > > Because the IO may reach loop and loop may redirect it to the same
> > > filesystem that is running under memalloc_nofs_save and deadlock.
> >
> > So what is the difference with the current GFP_NOFS?
>
> My point is that filesystems should use GFP_NOIO too. If
> alloc_pages(GFP_NOFS) issues some random I/O to some block device, the I/O
> may be end up being redirected (via block loop device) to the filesystem
> that is calling alloc_pages(GFP_NOFS).
Talk to FS people, but I believe there is a good reason to distinguish
the two.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists