lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: __vmalloc() vs. GFP_NOIO/GFP_NOFS
From
Date
On 2016/01/03 16:12, Al Viro wrote:
> Those, AFAICS, are such callers with GFP_NOIO; however, there's a shitload
> of GFP_NOFS ones. XFS uses memalloc_noio_save(), but a _lot_ of other
> callers do not. For example, all call chains leading to ceph_kvmalloc()
> pass GFP_NOFS and none of them is under memalloc_noio_save(). The same
> goes for GFS2 __vmalloc() callers, etc. Again, quite a few of those probably
> do not need GFP_NOFS at all, but those that do would appear to have
> hard-to-trigger deadlocks.
>
> Why do we do that in callers, though? I.e. why not do something like this:

This problem is not specific to vmalloc(). It is difficult for
non-fs developers to determine whether they need to use GFP_NOFS than
GFP_KERNEL in their code. Can't we annotate GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO sections like
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=142797559822655 ?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-01-04 15:01    [W:0.162 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site