From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752650AbeDXT2L (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:28:11 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53983 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751483AbeDXT2I (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:28:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:28:03 -0600 From: Michal Hocko To: Richard Weinberger Cc: LKML , Artem Bityutskiy , David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Boris Brezillon , Marek Vasut , Cyrille Pitchen , "Theodore Ts'o" , Andreas Dilger , Steven Whitehouse , Bob Peterson , Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker , Adrian Hunter , Philippe Ombredanne , Kate Stewart , Mikulas Patocka , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: vmalloc with GFP_NOFS Message-ID: <20180424192803.GT17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180424162712.GL17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <3732370.1623zxSvNg@blindfold> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3732370.1623zxSvNg@blindfold> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 24-04-18 21:03:43, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am Dienstag, 24. April 2018, 18:27:12 CEST schrieb Michal Hocko: > > fs/ubifs/debug.c > > This one is just for debugging. > So, preallocating + locking would not hurt much. > > > fs/ubifs/lprops.c > > Ditto. > > > fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c > > Here we use it also only in debugging mode and in one case for > fatal error reporting. > No hot paths. > > > fs/ubifs/orphan.c > > Also only for debugging. > Getting rid of vmalloc with GFP_NOFS in UBIFS is no big problem. > I can prepare a patch. Cool! Anyway, if UBIFS has some reclaim recursion critical sections in general it would be really great to have them documented and that is where the scope api is really handy. Just add the scope and document what is the recursion issue. This will help people reading the code as well. Ideally there shouldn't be any explicit GFP_NOFS in the code. Thanks for a quick turnaround. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: vmalloc with GFP_NOFS Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:28:03 -0600 Message-ID: <20180424192803.GT17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180424162712.GL17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <3732370.1623zxSvNg@blindfold> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: LKML , Artem Bityutskiy , David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Boris Brezillon , Marek Vasut , Cyrille Pitchen , Theodore Ts'o , Andreas Dilger , Steven Whitehouse , Bob Peterson , Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker , Adrian Hunter , Philippe Ombredanne , Kate Stewart , Mikulas Patocka , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-ext4@vger.k To: Richard Weinberger Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3732370.1623zxSvNg@blindfold> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue 24-04-18 21:03:43, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am Dienstag, 24. April 2018, 18:27:12 CEST schrieb Michal Hocko: > > fs/ubifs/debug.c > > This one is just for debugging. > So, preallocating + locking would not hurt much. > > > fs/ubifs/lprops.c > > Ditto. > > > fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c > > Here we use it also only in debugging mode and in one case for > fatal error reporting. > No hot paths. > > > fs/ubifs/orphan.c > > Also only for debugging. > Getting rid of vmalloc with GFP_NOFS in UBIFS is no big problem. > I can prepare a patch. Cool! Anyway, if UBIFS has some reclaim recursion critical sections in general it would be really great to have them documented and that is where the scope api is really handy. Just add the scope and document what is the recursion issue. This will help people reading the code as well. Ideally there shouldn't be any explicit GFP_NOFS in the code. Thanks for a quick turnaround. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michal Hocko Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:28:03 -0600 Subject: [Cluster-devel] vmalloc with GFP_NOFS In-Reply-To: <3732370.1623zxSvNg@blindfold> References: <20180424162712.GL17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <3732370.1623zxSvNg@blindfold> Message-ID: <20180424192803.GT17484@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 Tue 24-04-18 21:03:43, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am Dienstag, 24. April 2018, 18:27:12 CEST schrieb Michal Hocko: > > fs/ubifs/debug.c > > This one is just for debugging. > So, preallocating + locking would not hurt much. > > > fs/ubifs/lprops.c > > Ditto. > > > fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c > > Here we use it also only in debugging mode and in one case for > fatal error reporting. > No hot paths. > > > fs/ubifs/orphan.c > > Also only for debugging. > Getting rid of vmalloc with GFP_NOFS in UBIFS is no big problem. > I can prepare a patch. Cool! Anyway, if UBIFS has some reclaim recursion critical sections in general it would be really great to have them documented and that is where the scope api is really handy. Just add the scope and document what is the recursion issue. This will help people reading the code as well. Ideally there shouldn't be any explicit GFP_NOFS in the code. Thanks for a quick turnaround. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs