On Mon 06-02-17 07:24:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > This part is not needed for the patch, strictly speaking but I wanted to
> > make the code more future proof.
>
> Understood. I took an extra bit myself for marking the radix tree a
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> This part is not needed for the patch, strictly speaking but I wanted to
> make the code more future proof.
Understood. I took an extra bit myself for marking the radix tree as
being used for an IDR (so the radix tree now uses 4 bits
On Mon 06-02-17 06:26:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:07:13PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > While we are at it also make sure that the radix tree doesn't
> > accidentaly override tags stored in the upper part of the gfp_mask.
>
> > diff --git a/lib/radix-tree.c b/lib/radix-
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:07:13PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> While we are at it also make sure that the radix tree doesn't
> accidentaly override tags stored in the upper part of the gfp_mask.
> diff --git a/lib/radix-tree.c b/lib/radix-tree.c
> index 9dc093d5ef39..7550be09f9d6 100644
> --- a/l
From: Michal Hocko
The current implementation of the reclaim lockup detection can lead to
false positives and those even happen and usually lead to tweak the
code to silence the lockdep by using GFP_NOFS even though the context
can use __GFP_FS just fine. See
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201605120803
