[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081119093515.9c807f71.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:35:15 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] udf: reduce stack usage of udf_get_filename
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:26:22 +0100 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> On Tue 18-11-08 16:19:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:02:45 +0100
> > Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > + filename = kmalloc(sizeof(struct ustr), GFP_NOFS);
> >
> > I suspect that we could have used the superior GFP_KERNEL everywhere in
> > both these patches. But I'll let Jan worry about that ;)
> Definitely not in the second case - that one is called from inside
> readdir, lookup and symlink resolution code so that could lead to deadlocks
> IMHO.
> Regarding the first case in process_sequence, that is called only from
> udf_fill_super(). So there it might be safe to use GFP_KERNEL but I'm not
> quite sure either... So I'd leave GFP_NOFS there.
>
The reason for using GFP_NOFS is to prevent deadlocks when direct
memory reclaim reenters the filesystem code. But I don't think there's
ever a case when direct reclaim would enter the namespace part of a
filesystem - it is only expected to touch the pagecache (ie: data)
operations: writepage(), block allocator, etc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists