On Fri 16-12-16 13:15:18, Chris Mason wrote: > On 12/16/2016 02:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > I believe the right way to go around this is to pursue what I've started > > in [1]. I will try to prepare something for testing today for you. Stay > > tuned. But I would be really happy if somebody from the btrfs camp could > > check the NOFS aspect of this allocation. We have already seen > > allocation stalls from this path quite recently > > Just double checking, are you asking why we're using GFP_NOFS to avoid going > into btrfs from the btrfs writepages call, or are you asking why we aren't > allowing highmem?
I am more interested in the NOFS part. Why cannot this be a full GFP_KERNEL context? What kind of locks we would lock up when recursing to the fs via slab shrinkers? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
