[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ee6649ed-b0e8-1c59-c193-d1688fdfe7f5@nod.at>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 13:36:22 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, nbd-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
open-iscsi@...glegroups.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mtd: nand: nandsim: convert to memalloc_noreclaim_*()
Michal,
Am 05.04.2017 um 13:31 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> On Wed 05-04-17 09:47:00, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Nandsim has own functions set_memalloc() and clear_memalloc() for robust
>> setting and clearing of PF_MEMALLOC. Replace them by the new generic helpers.
>> No functional change.
>
> This one smells like an abuser. Why the hell should read/write path
> touch memory reserves at all!
Could be. Let's ask Adrian, AFAIK he wrote that code.
Adrian, can you please clarify why nandsim needs to play with PF_MEMALLOC?
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists