vmalloc with GFP_NOFS

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Michal Hocko wrote:

> 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?

Because the IO may reach loop and loop may redirect it to the same 
filesystem that is running under memalloc_nofs_save and deadlock.

> > 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?

What do you mean?

Mikulas