[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120223152223.43c72ccb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:22:23 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: vgoyal@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk, hughd@...gle.com,
avi@...hat.com, nate@...nel.net, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dpshah@...gle.com,
ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] mempool, percpu, blkcg: fix percpu stat allocation
and remove stats_lock
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:12:04 -0800
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 03:01:23PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hmmm... going through the thread again, ah, okay, I forgot about that
> > completely. Yeah, that is an actual problem. Both __GFP_WAIT which
> > isn't GFP_KERNEL and GFP_KERNEL are valid use cases. I guess we'll be
> > building async percpu pool in blkcg then. Great. :(
>
> Vivek, you win. :) Can you please refresh the async alloc patch on top
> of blkcg-stacking branch? I'll rool that into this series and drop
> the mempool stuff.
I forget how those patches work, but they might be vulnerable to the
same issue. If the block layer can handle the failed allocation
attempt and retry at the next I/O event then I guess that would be
acceptable; we'd lose a bit of statistical info occasionally, but who
cares.
But ISTR that we can't handle allocation failures here?
--
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