[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49vccjnm0o.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:22:31 -0500
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Zach Brown <zab@...hat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch] bdi: add a user-tunable cpu_list for the bdi flusher threads
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> writes:
>>> + bdi->flusher_cpumask = kmalloc(sizeof(cpumask_t), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!bdi->flusher_cpumask)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> The bare GFP_KERNEL raises an eyebrow. Some bdi_init() callers like
>> blk_alloc_queue_node() look like they'll want to pass in a gfp_t for the
>> allocation.
>
> I'd be surprised if that was necessary, seeing how every single caller
> of blk_alloc_queue_node passes in GFP_KERNEL. I'll make the change,
> though, there aren't too many callers of bdi_init out there.
No other callers of bdi_init want anything but GFP_KERNEL. In the case
of blk_alloc_queue_node, even *it* doesn't honor the gfp_t passed in!
Have a look at blkcg_init_queue (called from blk_alloc_queue_node) to
see what I mean. Maybe that's a bug?
I've written the patch to modify bdi_init to take a gfp_t, but I'm
actually not in favor of this change, so I'm not going to post it
(unless, of course, you can provide a compelling argument). :-)
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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