From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49109 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753904AbdBFPam (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2017 10:30:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:30:37 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Dave Chinner , djwong@kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" , Chris Mason , David Sterba , Jan Kara , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, logfs@logfs.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] lockdep: allow to disable reclaim lockup detection Message-ID: <20170206153037.GG10298@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170206140718.16222-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20170206140718.16222-2-mhocko@kernel.org> <20170206142641.GG2267@bombadil.infradead.org> <20170206143449.GD10298@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170206152400.GK2267@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20170206152400.GK2267@bombadil.infradead.org> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon 06-02-17 07:24:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > This part is not needed for the patch, strictly speaking but I wanted to > > make the code more future proof. > > Understood. I took an extra bit myself for marking the radix tree as > being used for an IDR (so the radix tree now uses 4 bits). I see you > already split out the address space GFP mask from the other flags :-) > I would prefer not to do that with the radix tree, but I understand > your desire for more GFP bits. I'm not entirely sure that an implicit > gfpmask makes a lot of sense for the radix tree, but it'd be a big effort > to change all the callers. Anyway, I'm going to update your line here > for my current tree and add the build bug so we'll know if we ever hit > any problems. OK, do I get it right that the patch can stay as is and go to Andrew? I would really like to not rebase the patch again for something that is not merged yet. I really hope for getting this merged finally... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:30:37 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Dave Chinner , djwong@kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o , Chris Mason , David Sterba , Jan Kara , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, logfs@logfs.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] lockdep: allow to disable reclaim lockup detection Message-ID: <20170206153037.GG10298@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20170206140718.16222-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20170206140718.16222-2-mhocko@kernel.org> <20170206142641.GG2267@bombadil.infradead.org> <20170206143449.GD10298@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170206152400.GK2267@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170206152400.GK2267@bombadil.infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon 06-02-17 07:24:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > This part is not needed for the patch, strictly speaking but I wanted to > > make the code more future proof. > > Understood. I took an extra bit myself for marking the radix tree as > being used for an IDR (so the radix tree now uses 4 bits). I see you > already split out the address space GFP mask from the other flags :-) > I would prefer not to do that with the radix tree, but I understand > your desire for more GFP bits. I'm not entirely sure that an implicit > gfpmask makes a lot of sense for the radix tree, but it'd be a big effort > to change all the callers. Anyway, I'm going to update your line here > for my current tree and add the build bug so we'll know if we ever hit > any problems. OK, do I get it right that the patch can stay as is and go to Andrew? I would really like to not rebase the patch again for something that is not merged yet. I really hope for getting this merged finally... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:30:37 +0100 Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 1/6] lockdep: allow to disable reclaim lockup detection In-Reply-To: <20170206152400.GK2267@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20170206140718.16222-1-mhocko@kernel.org> <20170206140718.16222-2-mhocko@kernel.org> <20170206142641.GG2267@bombadil.infradead.org> <20170206143449.GD10298@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170206152400.GK2267@bombadil.infradead.org> Message-ID: <20170206153037.GG10298@dhcp22.suse.cz> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon 06-02-17 07:24:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > This part is not needed for the patch, strictly speaking but I wanted to > > make the code more future proof. > > Understood. I took an extra bit myself for marking the radix tree as > being used for an IDR (so the radix tree now uses 4 bits). I see you > already split out the address space GFP mask from the other flags :-) > I would prefer not to do that with the radix tree, but I understand > your desire for more GFP bits. I'm not entirely sure that an implicit > gfpmask makes a lot of sense for the radix tree, but it'd be a big effort > to change all the callers. Anyway, I'm going to update your line here > for my current tree and add the build bug so we'll know if we ever hit > any problems. OK, do I get it right that the patch can stay as is and go to Andrew? I would really like to not rebase the patch again for something that is not merged yet. I really hope for getting this merged finally... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs