On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:03PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> kmem_zalloc_large and _xfs_buf_map_pages use memalloc_noio_{save,restore}
> API to prevent from reclaim recursion into the fs because vmalloc can
> invoke unconditional GFP_KERNEL allocations and these function
On Fri 06-01-17 13:09:36, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 07:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > While checking opencoded users I've encountered that vhost code would
> > really like to use kvmalloc with __GFP_REPEAT [1] so the following patch
> > adds support for __GFP_REPEAT and converts both v
On 01/06/2017 03:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> GFP_NOFS context is used for the following 5 reasons currently
> - to prevent from deadlocks when the lock held by the allocation
> context would be needed during the memory reclaim
> - to prevent from stack
On 01/06/2017 03:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> kmem_zalloc_large and _xfs_buf_map_pages use memalloc_noio_{save,restore}
> API to prevent from reclaim recursion into the fs because vmalloc can
> invoke unconditional GFP_KERNEL allocations and these functions might be
> calle
On Mon 09-01-17 15:08:27, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/06/2017 03:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > kmem_zalloc_large and _xfs_buf_map_pages use memalloc_noio_{save,restore}
> > API to prevent from reclaim recursion into the fs because vmalloc can
> > invoke unconditiona
On Mon 09-01-17 14:42:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 09-01-17 14:04:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
> Now that you have opened this I have noticed that the code is wrong
> here because GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE & ~GFP_RECLAIM_MASK would overwrite
> the removed GFP_FS.
Blee, it wouldn't because ~GFP_
On 01/09/2017 02:42 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 09-01-17 14:04:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [...]
>>> +static inline unsigned int memalloc_nofs_save(void)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned int flags = current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS;
>>> + current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS;
>>
>> So this is not new
On 01/06/2017 03:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> xfs has defined PF_FSTRANS to declare a scope GFP_NOFS semantic quite
> some time ago. We would like to make this concept more generic and use
> it for other filesystems as well. Let's start by giving the flag a
> more generic n
On Mon 09-01-17 13:59:05, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/06/2017 03:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > xfs has defined PF_FSTRANS to declare a scope GFP_NOFS semantic quite
> > some time ago. We would like to make this concept more generic and use
> > it for other filesyste
On 01/06/2017 03:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> The current implementation of the reclaim lockup detection can lead to
> false positives and those even happen and usually lead to tweak the
> code to silence the lockdep by using GFP_NOFS even though the context
> can use __GFP
On Mon 09-01-17 14:04:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
> > +static inline unsigned int memalloc_nofs_save(void)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int flags = current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS;
> > + current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS;
>
> So this is not new, as same goes for memalloc_noio_save, but I've
>
Hi all,
The CFP for the Linux Foundation's Vault conference is coming close to an end.
The event is being held this year in Cambridge, Massachusetts on the days
following the LSF/MM summit.
The first two year's events have been solid, focused events in my (slightly
biased) opinion, so worth su
Hi Jaegeuk,
On 2017/1/8 13:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> @@ -2786,6 +2811,7 @@ static void destroy_sit_info(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>> if (sit_i->sentries) {
>> for (start = 0; start < MAIN_SEGS(sbi); start++) {
>> kfree(sit_i->sentries[start].cur_valid_map);
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
