On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 10:59:54PM -0500, [email protected] wrote: > From: Oleg Drokin <[email protected]> > > leaf_dealloc uses vzalloc as a fallback to kzalloc(GFP_NOFS), so > it clearly does not want any shrinker activity within the fs itself. > convert vzalloc into __vmalloc(GFP_NOFS|__GFP_ZERO) to better achieve > this goal. > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <[email protected]> > --- > fs/gfs2/dir.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/dir.c b/fs/gfs2/dir.c > index c5a34f0..6371192 100644 > --- a/fs/gfs2/dir.c > +++ b/fs/gfs2/dir.c > @@ -1896,7 +1896,8 @@ static int leaf_dealloc(struct gfs2_inode *dip, u32 > index, u32 len, > > ht = kzalloc(size, GFP_NOFS | __GFP_NOWARN); > if (ht == NULL) > - ht = vzalloc(size); > + ht = __vmalloc(size, GFP_NOFS | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_ZERO, > + PAGE_KERNEL);
That, in the end, won't help as vmalloc still uses GFP_KERNEL allocations deep down in the PTE allocation code. See the hacks in the DM and XFS code to work around this. i.e. go look for callers of memalloc_noio_save(). It's ugly and grotesque, but we've got no other way to limit reclaim context because the MM devs won't pass the vmalloc gfp context down the stack to the PTE allocations.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner [email protected] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
