Re: [PATCH 1/6] lockdep: allow to disable reclaim lockup detection

2017-02-06 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 06-02-17 07:24:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > This part is not needed for the patch, strictly speaking but I wanted to > > make the code more future proof. > > Understood. I took an extra bit myself for marking the radix tree a

Re: [PATCH 1/6] lockdep: allow to disable reclaim lockup detection

2017-02-06 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > This part is not needed for the patch, strictly speaking but I wanted to > make the code more future proof. Understood. I took an extra bit myself for marking the radix tree as being used for an IDR (so the radix tree now uses 4 bits

Re: [PATCH 1/6] lockdep: allow to disable reclaim lockup detection

2017-02-06 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 06-02-17 06:26:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:07:13PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > While we are at it also make sure that the radix tree doesn't > > accidentaly override tags stored in the upper part of the gfp_mask. > > > diff --git a/lib/radix-tree.c b/lib/radix-

Re: [PATCH 1/6] lockdep: allow to disable reclaim lockup detection

2017-02-06 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:07:13PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > While we are at it also make sure that the radix tree doesn't > accidentaly override tags stored in the upper part of the gfp_mask. > diff --git a/lib/radix-tree.c b/lib/radix-tree.c > index 9dc093d5ef39..7550be09f9d6 100644 > --- a/l