vmalloc with GFP_NOFS
mhocko at kernel.org
Tue Apr 24 16:25:17 PDT 2018
On Tue 24-04-18 19:17:12, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 25-04-18 00:18:40, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 24. April 2018, 21:28:03 CEST schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > > > > Also only for debugging.
> > > > > Getting rid of vmalloc with GFP_NOFS in UBIFS is no big problem.
> > > > > I can prepare a patch.
> > > >
> > > > Cool!
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, if UBIFS has some reclaim recursion critical sections in general
> > > > it would be really great to have them documented and that is where the
> > > > scope api is really handy. Just add the scope and document what is the
> > > > recursion issue. This will help people reading the code as well. Ideally
> > > > there shouldn't be any explicit GFP_NOFS in the code.
> > >
> > > So in a perfect world a filesystem calls memalloc_nofs_save/restore and
> > > always uses GFP_KERNEL for kmalloc/vmalloc?
> > Exactly! And in a dream world those memalloc_nofs_save act as a
> > documentation of the reclaim recursion documentation ;)
> > --
> > Michal Hocko
> > SUSE Labs
> BTW. should memalloc_nofs_save and memalloc_noio_save be merged into just
> one that prevents both I/O and FS recursion?
Why should FS usage stop IO altogether?
> memalloc_nofs_save allows submitting bios to I/O stack and the bios
> created under memalloc_nofs_save could be sent to the loop device and the
> loop device calls the filesystem...
Don't those use NOIO context?
More information about the linux-mtd