[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <l3dngdjyglhpnlcmjxerpmiyw4euodb6sxsxe3mwtyd2z3uopu@amisj3chjfqe>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:27:04 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>, jack@...e.cz,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 v2] remove PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM
On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 07:13:42AM GMT, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 02:52:52PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > It would be helpful to summarize your concerns.
>
> And that'd better be a really good argument for a change that was
> pushed directly to Linus bypassing the maintainer after multiple
> reviewers pointed out it was broken. This series simply undoes the
> damage done by that, while also keeping the code dependend on it
> working.
Well, to be blunt, I thought the "we don't want the allocator to even
know if we're in a non-sleepable context" argument was too crazy to have
real support, and moving towards PF_MEMALLOC flags is something we've
been talking about quite a bit going back years.
Little did I know the minefield I was walking into...
But the disccussion seems to finally be cooling off and going in a more
productive direction.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists