[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160427075102.GB2179@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:51:02 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
logfs@...fs.org, xfs@....sgi.com, 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 1/2] mm: add PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS
On Wed 27-04-16 09:07:02, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:56:11PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> >
> > GFP_NOFS context is used for the following 4 reasons currently
> > - to prevent from deadlocks when the lock held by the allocation
> > context would be needed during the memory reclaim
> > - to prevent from stack overflows during the reclaim because
> > the allocation is performed from a deep context already
> > - to prevent lockups when the allocation context depends on
> > other reclaimers to make a forward progress indirectly
> > - just in case because this would be safe from the fs POV
>
> - silencing lockdep false positives
>
> > Introduce PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS task specific flag and memalloc_nofs_{save,restore}
> > API to control the scope. This is basically copying
> > memalloc_noio_{save,restore} API we have for other restricted allocation
> > context GFP_NOIO.
> >
> > Xfs has already had a similar functionality as PF_FSTRANS so let's just
> > give it a more generic name and make it usable for others as well and
> > move the GFP_NOFS context tracking to the page allocator. Xfs has its
> > own accessor functions but let's keep them for now to reduce this patch
> > as minimum.
>
> Can you split this into two patches? The first simply does this:
>
> #define PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS PF_FSTRANS
>
> and changes only the XFS code to use PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS.
>
> The second patch can then do the rest of the mm API changes that we
> don't actually care about in XFS at all. That way I can carry all
> the XFS changes in the XFS tree and not have to worry about when
> this stuff gets merged or conflicts with the rest of the work that
> is being done to the mm/ code and whatever tree that eventually
> lands in...
Sure I will do that
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists