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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 5F8C6CA9EAB for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 21:26:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290492064B for ; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 21:26:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="ZnOrNkET" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726258AbfJSV0B (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Oct 2019 17:26:01 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com ([209.85.215.194]:46752 "EHLO mail-pg1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726136AbfJSV0A (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Oct 2019 17:26:00 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id e15so5285881pgu.13; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:26:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LuC1R6V8c/Kdme5A156FRd/JC432a1mSGvBSl/q3ZUU=; b=ZnOrNkETUnKKV2W50EUrhkGSYwpwQNjMDU3i/s1Yt+3ugs4jYR9+Ebc4N+fes7DyCY hwGaBTmdFew8YbeTNiwU9G9hoCyBC4Y8s0wmJQPrNpvH0/7iGvwMk1I/nPbLBBsO6VJR zKL/d4eLt1F5QwLgEBjKVHsFYaord9+kJL/spIIfDR7F1B6lqLaE1wOzL/QFx9I5vAhi KcenwImPB93iCyK6tQkA/6+7pX/8u+jFiN640F4z2snMr8zATrB8TzY/+a50S4Inl2nr iTD4AzY45cw7TuJiRSNzetfcD3VOfuB+lTFvRQ9o0jseO6Bd2R5gF8NjhsvyvJWgtJx0 5Ffg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LuC1R6V8c/Kdme5A156FRd/JC432a1mSGvBSl/q3ZUU=; b=AW1mJeDMnh9eRv9P4RlpUw1d5lORyuz4GrS2FI+BVOQBcYkXmi9TE5bOTMIhaqaTk/ NbJTInmajydRM9ikueJj1ms/71vmiGEQnWPatbdJnf/tWSxqBj68AoGDHdMo3GgJHHs+ qCyZiLbjIrFDpR+M5ODxMrqvZduJiKwPgWnpo2OUYDt3VyWDnGOojXG0DpoiROObYXCo eT4aCtTvCizPue4QHv2a/x6SBR3xCZoJvzopfOFBZTv9KsVOTmDHczfrOKAv4MnqujOE rNo3JBnXXZQtCTg0AEX3IUa+kFpMLPb1JjDU2ztNIzNFbSWGXk25gpzBgJz9CtPDb5H/ tIeA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX8L4AiggtQDacPlNVBod+twUAL+UJFUJuKNDGcOlufiIeKvMdX Ls2Q8NS6P/MNVnHfhQzT9UE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwWjIurUxYv1G3ixEDYP9XzaOXOxmAuaYRQDj248y1tyU9RGVycj8IDeRkcqClyFgYhvZ8gSA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:560d:: with SMTP id k13mr17083611pgb.437.1571520359768; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:25:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.86.235] (c-73-241-150-70.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.241.150.70]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w5sm9925023pfn.96.2019.10.19.14.25.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix sk_page_frag() recursion from memory reclaim To: Tejun Heo , Eric Dumazet Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josef Bacik References: <20191019170141.GQ18794@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <20191019211856.GR18794@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> From: Eric Dumazet Message-ID: <41874d3e-584c-437c-0110-83e001abf1b9@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:25:57 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191019211856.GR18794@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 !