[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod7Lm5d-84wWubTUOFWo4XU2cgqBpFw84QzFdiokX86COQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 11:51:57 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: fix sk_page_frag() recursion from memory reclaim
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:43 AM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:30:57AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > Basically what I wanted to say that MM treats PF_MEMALLOC as the
> > reclaim context while __GFP_MEMALLOC just tells to give access to the
> > reserves. As gfpflags_allow_blocking() can be used beyond net
> > subsystem, my only concern is its potential usage under PF_MEMALLOC
> > context but without __GFP_MEMALLOC.
>
> Yeah, PF_MEMALLOC is likely the better condition to check here as we
> primarily want to know whether %current might be recursing and that
> should be indicated reliably with PF_MEMALLOC. Wanna prep a patch for
> it?
Sure, I will keep your commit message and authorship (if you are ok with it).
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists