[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r310vt19.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 07:42:26 +1000
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To: Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@...app.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>
Cc: linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS: fix usage of mempools.
On Mon, Apr 10 2017, Anna Schumaker wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> On 04/09/2017 10:22 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>>
>> + /* It is OK to do some reclaim, not no safe to wait
>> + * for anything to be returned to the pool.
>> + * mempool_alloc() cannot handle that particular combination,
>> + * so we need two separate attempts.
>> + */
>> + p = mempool_alloc(nfs_commit_mempool, GFP_NOWAIT);
>> + if (!p)
>> + p = kmem_cache_alloc(nfs_cdata_cachep, GFP_NOIO |
>> + __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY);
>
> Do we need to add something to the nfs_commit_data structure to
> properly free a kmem_cache_alloc()-ed object? Right now it looks like
> nfs_commit_free() calls mempool_free() unconditionally.
Good question. I should have clarified that in the patch comment.
Can you add this to that comment please.
The objects returned by kmem_cache_alloc() will still be freed
by mempool_free(). This is safe as mempool_alloc() uses
exactly the same function to allocate objects (since the mempool
was created with mempool_create_slab_pool()). The object returned
by mempool_alloc() and kmem_cache_alloc() are indistinguishable
so mempool_free() will handle both identically, either adding to the
pool or calling kmem_cache_free().
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists