Dave,
On 2019/07/31 8:48, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 02:06:33AM +, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> If we had a pread_nofs()/pwrite_nofs(), that would work. Or we could define a
>> RWF_NORECLAIM flag for pwritev2()/preadv2(). This last one could actually be
>> the
>> cleanest
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 02:06:33AM +, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> If we had a pread_nofs()/pwrite_nofs(), that would work. Or we could define a
> RWF_NORECLAIM flag for pwritev2()/preadv2(). This last one could actually be
> the
> cleanest approach.
Clean, yes, but I'm not sure we want to expose
Andreas,
On 2019/07/30 3:40, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2019, at 8:59 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/07/27 7:55, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 08:44:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> This looks like something that could hit every file systems, so
On Jul 26, 2019, at 8:59 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>
> On 2019/07/27 7:55, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 08:44:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
This looks like something that could hit every file systems, so
shouldn't we fix this in common code? We could also
On 2019/07/29 8:42, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 02:59:59AM +, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 2019/07/27 7:55, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 08:44:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> This looks like something that could hit every file systems, so
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 02:59:59AM +, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2019/07/27 7:55, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 08:44:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This looks like something that could hit every file systems, so
> >>> shouldn't we fix this in common code?
On 2019/07/27 7:55, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 08:44:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>
>>> This looks like something that could hit every file systems, so
>>> shouldn't we fix this in common code? We could also look into
>>> just using memalloc_nofs_save for the page
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 08:44:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > This looks like something that could hit every file systems, so
> > shouldn't we fix this in common code? We could also look into
> > just using memalloc_nofs_save for the page cache allocation path
> > instead of the
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 04:54:42AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:33:58PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> > + gfp_t gfp_mask;
> > +
> > switch (ext4_inode_journal_mode(inode)) {
> > case EXT4_INODE_ORDERED_DATA_MODE:
> > case
On 2019/07/25 20:54, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:33:58PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> +gfp_t gfp_mask;
>> +
>> switch (ext4_inode_journal_mode(inode)) {
>> case EXT4_INODE_ORDERED_DATA_MODE:
>> case EXT4_INODE_WRITEBACK_DATA_MODE:
>> @@ -4019,6
On Jul 25, 2019, at 5:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:33:58PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> +gfp_t gfp_mask;
>> +
>> switch (ext4_inode_journal_mode(inode)) {
>> case EXT4_INODE_ORDERED_DATA_MODE:
>> case EXT4_INODE_WRITEBACK_DATA_MODE:
>> @@
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:33:58PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> + gfp_t gfp_mask;
> +
> switch (ext4_inode_journal_mode(inode)) {
> case EXT4_INODE_ORDERED_DATA_MODE:
> case EXT4_INODE_WRITEBACK_DATA_MODE:
> @@ -4019,6 +4019,14 @@ void ext4_set_aops(struct inode *inode)
>
In ext4_[da_]write_begin(), grab_cache_page_write_begin() is being
called without GFP_NOFS set for the context. This is considered adequate
as any eventual memory reclaim triggered by a page allocation is being
done before the transaction handle for the write operation is started.
However, with
13 matches
Mail list logo
