From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD7DCA9EA0 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 17:19:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916BC206C2 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 17:19:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netronome-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@netronome-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="tEpsjhnX" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732297AbfJVRTp (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:19:45 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f196.google.com ([209.85.208.196]:42004 "EHLO mail-lj1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725861AbfJVRTo (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:19:44 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f196.google.com with SMTP id u4so3907150ljj.9 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:19:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netronome-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cy34QT92NHhuXVd0S9iPTc4eeCufEq/lJNlVwgrDWg0=; b=tEpsjhnXNsRzMFdAsi5Me5vtmMaSPKxbjyPby898vjwDTkOf6U4LzY66u49GwG4QxU PelGGK5wr/HkW0Vel+2/ab6Ro+WYh6lMvqELw1S19dch0gJnycxJkFTFS7qJ/0CbRwDp sS0FMnzQOyBKK+qQMbNnbfna88/YZZt46vKYn3UZ5CPC4RZdQ+MgHwWZ2JxseE2eFT1j cxE31qCc1oC8snuXaIae7fZMBEiVgQZhqc9zYn8CWTLNW1AV4MhL6/90fvnphP33G9EI jCZ8RU5+GWaky9PujnMjVTE9Uf3mk/Ci5xhAlEXOcUF/xARugV0TAjRGujTBAnYhurKv MZ0Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cy34QT92NHhuXVd0S9iPTc4eeCufEq/lJNlVwgrDWg0=; b=DhmOiQFPnxb0IDNUiVcjlZXi8BI2XMrGhzg3fvIgMssZuJF1Tir9VCwJKklC9pyLcn 7iNuYxfKB27AI0J1F23KsLk0RgiypAX4OMXHV9FmzYp/8O42SqqSjvt8uBeIfAC26aGJ QKy6TUc6QB0hSYcDrk1kTnFop0Sl1gRY9B41Du/ZLYGVd5rqjEZy5CI2YGM3/ToUi1tr /0Cdgt6RGvek4dU0jT9kCEKW+QJHF7Krm/V1vX4cSn7kKyMWQ4UjKkfMIO9slUh056LI isSzCOwJj63TsxfwR+CTjFWIM2dQ2B5xbkJfVq9UISzuQN9hVCF74QnG7pWoco5HtG5l w3rw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWe68n4U6adOLmLuPaEMWT9cGbfHT38+VNqTnm/e09/rZjBGPUv UNHJH4vp1InR3lfNVtKjuWPPFg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx2nMG9uV82zzuDAWW/sGyUPqp5AI2OI+UE3fPbmcfyRxRy2DzOxBhWNqFGs90SK1p+WXM+Qw== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:97ca:: with SMTP id m10mr192469ljj.190.1571764782935; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cakuba.netronome.com ([66.60.152.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d24sm5173468lfl.65.2019.10.22.10.19.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:19:36 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Tejun Heo , "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josef Bacik Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix sk_page_frag() recursion from memory reclaim Message-ID: <20191022101936.23759c14@cakuba.netronome.com> In-Reply-To: <41874d3e-584c-437c-0110-83e001abf1b9@gmail.com> References: <20191019170141.GQ18794@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <20191019211856.GR18794@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <41874d3e-584c-437c-0110-83e001abf1b9@gmail.com> Organization: Netronome Systems, Ltd. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:25:57 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On 10/19/19 2:18 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Whatever works is fine by me. gfpflags_allow_blocking() is clearer > > than testing __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM directly tho. Maybe a better way is > > introducing a new gfpflags_ helper? > > Sounds good to me ! IIUC there will be a v2 with a new helper, dropping this from patchwork.