From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] etrfs: fix up misleading GFP_NOFS usage in btrfs_releasepage
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:16:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170111161655.GF16365@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170111135550.GJ12081@twin.jikos.cz>
On Wed 11-01-17 14:55:50, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:39:02PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> >
> > b335b0034e25 ("Btrfs: Avoid using __GFP_HIGHMEM with slab allocator")
> > has reduced the allocation mask in btrfs_releasepage to GFP_NOFS just
> > to prevent from giving an unappropriate gfp mask to the slab allocator
> > deeper down the callchain (in alloc_extent_state). This is wrong for
> > two reasons a) GFP_NOFS might be just too restrictive for the calling
> > context b) it is better to tweak the gfp mask down when it needs that.
> >
> > So just remove the mask tweaking from btrfs_releasepage and move it
> > down to alloc_extent_state where it is needed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 5 +++++
> > fs/btrfs/inode.c | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> > index b38150eec6b4..f6ae94a4acad 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> > @@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ static struct extent_state *alloc_extent_state(gfp_t mask)
> > {
> > struct extent_state *state;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * The given mask might be not appropriate for the slab allocator,
> > + * drop the unsupported bits
> > + */
> > + mask &= ~(__GFP_DMA32|__GFP_HIGHMEM);
>
> Is this future proof enough? As it's enumerating some gfp flags, what if
> more are necessary in the future? I'm interested about some synthetic
> gfp flags that would not require knowledge about what is or is not
> acceptable for slab allocator.
Well, I agree, that something like slab_restrict_gfp_mask(gfp_t gfp_mask)
would be much better. And in fact that sounds like a nice future
cleanup. I haven't checked how many users would find it useful yet but I
am putting that on my todo list.
> But otherwise looks ok to me, I'm going to merge the patch. Thanks.
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-11 16:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-09 14:39 Michal Hocko
2017-01-09 14:39 ` [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: drop gfp mask tweaking in try_release_extent_state Michal Hocko
2017-01-11 16:03 ` David Sterba
2017-01-11 13:55 ` [PATCH 1/2] etrfs: fix up misleading GFP_NOFS usage in btrfs_releasepage David Sterba
2017-01-11 16:16 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-01-11 16:18 ` Michal Hocko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170111161655.GF16365@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®