Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fallback to vmalloc in btrfs_compare_tree

2016-03-30 Thread Jean-Denis Girard
Hi David, Le 30/03/2016 04:05, David Sterba a écrit : > The allocation of node could fail if the memory is too fragmented for a > given node size, practically observed with 64k. > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/54689 > > Reported-by: Jean-Denis Girard > Signed-off-by:

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fallback to vmalloc in btrfs_compare_tree

2016-03-30 Thread David Sterba
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:10:45AM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 04:05:43PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > The allocation of node could fail if the memory is too fragmented for a > > given node size, practically observed with 64k. > > It's not a critical path. Why not use vmalloc

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fallback to vmalloc in btrfs_compare_tree

2016-03-30 Thread Liu Bo
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 04:05:43PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > The allocation of node could fail if the memory is too fragmented for a > given node size, practically observed with 64k. It's not a critical path. Why not use vmalloc directly? Thanks, -liubo > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.c