On Tue 26-06-18 12:07:57, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:55 AM Johannes Weiner <han...@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:00:53AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:49 PM Amir Goldstein <amir7...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > The verb 'unuse' takes an argument memcg and 'uses' it - too weird.
> > > > You can use 'override'/'revert' verbs like override_creds or just call
> > > > memalloc_use_memcg(old_memcg) since there is no reference taken
> > > > anyway in use_memcg and no reference released in unuse_memcg.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise looks good to me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback. Just using memalloc_use_memcg(old_memcg) and
> > > ignoring the return seems more simple. I will wait for feedback from
> > > other before changing anything.
> >
> > We're not nesting calls to memalloc_use_memcg(), right? So we don't
> > have to return old_memcg and don't have to pass anything to unuse, it
> > can always set current->active_memcg to NULL.
>
> For buffer_head, the allocation is done with GFP_NOFS. So, I think
> there is no chance of nesting. The fsnotify uses GFP_KERNEL but based
> on my limited understanding of fsnotify, there should not be any
> nesting i.e. the allocation triggering reclaim which trigger fsnotify
> events. Though I would like Amir or Jan to confirm there is no nesting
> possible.
You are correct. Fsnotify events are generated only as a result of some
syscall, not due to reclaim or stuff like that.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
