Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Mon 30-01-17 09:12:10, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 27-01-17 11:40:42, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:37:35AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > If this ever turn out to be a problem and with the vmapped stacks we > > > have good chances to get a proper stack traces on a

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Fri 27-01-17 11:40:42, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:37:35AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > If this ever turn out to be a problem and with the vmapped stacks we > > have good chances to get a proper stack traces on a potential overflow > > we can add the scope API around the

Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:40:42AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: The reason why I'm nervous is that nojournal mode is not a common configuration, and "wait until production systems start failing" is not a strategy that I or many SRE-types find

Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:40:42AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > The reason why I'm nervous is that nojournal mode is not a common > configuration, and "wait until production systems start failing" is > not a strategy that I or many SRE-types find comforting. What does SRE stand for? -- To

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:37:35AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > If this ever turn out to be a problem and with the vmapped stacks we > have good chances to get a proper stack traces on a potential overflow > we can add the scope API around the problematic code path with the > explanation why it is

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Fri 27-01-17 01:13:18, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 08:44:55AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > I'm convinced the current series is OK, only real life will tell us > > > > whether > > > > we missed something or not ;) > > > > > > I would like to extend the changelog of

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 08:44:55AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I'm convinced the current series is OK, only real life will tell us > > > whether > > > we missed something or not ;) > > > > I would like to extend the changelog of "jbd2: mark the transaction > > context with the scope

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Thu 19-01-17 10:44:05, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 19-01-17 10:22:36, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Thu 19-01-17 09:39:56, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Tue 17-01-17 18:29:25, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > On Tue 17-01-17 17:16:19, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > But before going to play with that I am

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Thu 19-01-17 10:22:36, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 19-01-17 09:39:56, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 17-01-17 18:29:25, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Tue 17-01-17 17:16:19, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > But before going to play with that I am really wondering whether we > > > > > > need > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Thu 19-01-17 09:39:56, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 17-01-17 18:29:25, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Tue 17-01-17 17:16:19, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > But before going to play with that I am really wondering whether we > > > > > need > > > > > all this with no journal at all. AFAIU what Jack told

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Tue 17-01-17 18:29:25, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 17-01-17 17:16:19, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > But before going to play with that I am really wondering whether we need > > > > all this with no journal at all. AFAIU what Jack told me it is the > > > > journal lock(s) which is the biggest problem

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Tue 17-01-17 14:04:03, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Jan 17, 2017, at 8:59 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:18:17PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> > >> OK, so I've been staring into the code and AFAIU current->journal_info > >> can contain my stored

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Jan 17, 2017, at 8:59 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:18:17PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >> OK, so I've been staring into the code and AFAIU current->journal_info >> can contain my stored information. I could either hijack part of the >> word as the

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Tue 17-01-17 17:16:19, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > But before going to play with that I am really wondering whether we need > > > all this with no journal at all. AFAIU what Jack told me it is the > > > journal lock(s) which is the biggest problem from the reclaim recursion > > > point of view.

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Tue 17-01-17 10:59:16, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:18:17PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > OK, so I've been staring into the code and AFAIU current->journal_info > > can contain my stored information. I could either hijack part of the > > word as the ref counting is

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:18:17PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > OK, so I've been staring into the code and AFAIU current->journal_info > can contain my stored information. I could either hijack part of the > word as the ref counting is only consuming low 12b. But that looks too > ugly to live.

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Tue 17-01-17 09:24:25, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 16-01-17 21:56:07, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:07PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > From: Michal Hocko > > > > > > This reverts commit 216553c4b7f3e3e2beb4981cddca9b2027523928. Now that > > > the

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Mon 16-01-17 21:56:07, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:07PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > From: Michal Hocko > > > > This reverts commit 216553c4b7f3e3e2beb4981cddca9b2027523928. Now that > > the transaction context uses memalloc_nofs_save and all

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:07PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > From: Michal Hocko > > This reverts commit 216553c4b7f3e3e2beb4981cddca9b2027523928. Now that > the transaction context uses memalloc_nofs_save and all allocations > within the this context inherit GFP_NOFS

[PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

From: Michal Hocko This reverts commit 216553c4b7f3e3e2beb4981cddca9b2027523928. Now that the transaction context uses memalloc_nofs_save and all allocations within the this context inherit GFP_NOFS automatically, there is no reason to mark specific allocations explicitly. This