ck(&im->ino_lock);
> - radix_tree_preload_end();
> +
> + if (preloaded)
> + radix_tree_preload_end();
>
> if (e != tmp)
> kmem_cache_free(ino_entry_slab, tmp);
> --
> 2.14.1.145.gb3622a4ee
--
Michal Hocko
onditions.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Linux-f2fs
question. Why do you make all allocations for the mapping
NOFS automatically? What kind of reclaim recursion problems are you
trying to prevent?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of t
On Mon 09-04-18 06:41:14, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 02:48:52PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 09-04-18 20:25:06, Chao Yu wrote:
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > > index c852e800..cc63f8c448f0 1
644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -785,7 +785,7 @@ int replace_page_cache_page(struct page *old, struct page
> *new, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLocked(new), new);
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(new->mapping, new);
>
>
On Tue 10-04-18 05:05:28, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:26:43AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 09-04-18 12:40:44, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > The problem is that the mapping gfp flags are used not only for allocating
> > > pages, but also fo
CLAIM_MASK filtering and a warning in slab for
__GFP_ZERO looks like a reasonable step forward.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites,
(GFP_NOFS | __GFP_ZERO)
> #define GFP_F2FS_HIGH_ZERO (GFP_NOFS | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_HIGHMEM)
> +#define GFP_F2FS_NODE_MAPPING (GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_ZERO)
>
> Thanks,
> Sahitya.
> --
> --
> Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
&g
On Fri 01-06-18 16:50:50, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 12:26:09PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 01-06-18 15:02:35, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We are observing a deadlock scenario during FS writeback under
of the low mem
is in the Normal zone which is completely missing here. How have you got
to that configuration? I have to say I haven't seen anything like that
on i386.
The failing request is GFP_USER so highmem is not really allowed but
free pages are way above watermarks so the allocation should hav
On Tue 19-05-20 10:11:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:52 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 18-05-20 19:40:55, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > Thanks for looking into this problem.
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 02:28, Andrew Morto
ed. If memory.{low,min} is not used then the patch should be
effectively a nop. Btw. do you see the problem when booting with
cgroup_disable=memory kernel command line parameter?
I suspect that something might be initialized for memcg incorrectly and
the patch just makes it more visible for some reason
On Thu 21-05-20 16:11:11, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 20-05-20 20:09:06, Chris Down wrote:
> > > Hi Naresh,
> > >
> > > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > > As a part of investigation
On Thu 21-05-20 05:24:27, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 21-05-20 16:11:11, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed 20-05-20 20:09
On Thu 21-05-20 11:55:16, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 20-05-20 20:09:06, Chris Down wrote:
> > Hi Naresh,
> >
> > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > As a part of investigation on this issue LKFT teammate Anders Roxell
> > > git bisected the problem an
0 Not tainted
> > > > > 5.7.0-rc6-next-20200519+ #1
> > > > > [ 35.532121] Hardware name: Supermicro SYS-5019S-ML/X11SSH-F, BIOS
> > > > > 2.2 05/23/2018
> > > > > [ 35.539507] EIP: mem_cgroup_get_nr_swap_pages+0x28/0x60
>
> Swap
s
this still hold? Because I still have a hard time to understand how
those three patches could have the observed effects.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
___
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
ld confirm. Maybe my
debugging patch is incomplete or used incorrectly (maybe it would be
esier to use printk rather than trace_printk?).
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
___
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
On Fri 29-05-20 11:49:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 29-05-20 02:56:44, Chris Down wrote:
> > Yafang Shao writes:
> > > Look at this patch[1] carefully you will find that it introduces the
> > > same issue that I tried to fix in another patch [2]. Even more sad is
>
On Fri 12-06-20 15:13:22, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 29-05-20 11:49:20, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 29-05-20 02:56:44, Chris Down wrote:
> > > > Yafang Shao writes:
> > > Agreed. E
On Wed 17-06-20 19:07:20, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Thu 21-05-20 11:55:16, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Wed 20-05-20 20:09:06, Chris Down wrote:
> > > > Hi Naresh,
> > > >
>
in
> and mem_cgroup_below_low changed to `>`? If that fixes it, then that gives a
> strong hint about what's going on here.
This would work but I believe an explicit check for the root memcg would
be easier to spot the reasoning.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
___
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
On Wed 17-06-20 21:23:05, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 19:41, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > [Our emails have crossed]
> >
> > On Wed 17-06-20 14:57:58, Chris Down wrote:
> > > Naresh Kamboju writes:
> > > > mkfs -t ext4 /dev
> > should not be exposed to other MM parts.
>
> I agree that the current semantics are mentally taxing and we should
> generally avoid exposing the implementation details outside of memcg where
> possible. Do you have a suggested rework? :-)
I would really prefer to do that wo
From: Michal Hocko
GFP_NOFS context is used for the following 4 reasons currently
- to prevent from deadlocks when the lock held by the allocation
context would be needed during the memory reclaim
- to prevent from stack overflows during the reclaim because
Hi,
we have discussed this topic at LSF/MM this year. There was a general
interest in the scope GFP_NOFS allocation context among some FS
developers. For those who are not aware of the discussion or the issue
I am trying to sort out (or at least start in that direction) please
have a look at patch
From: Michal Hocko
THIS PATCH IS FOR TESTING ONLY AND NOT MEANT TO HIT LINUS TREE
It is desirable to reduce the direct GFP_NO{FS,IO} usage at minimum and
prefer scope usage defined by memalloc_no{fs,io}_{save,restore} API.
Let's help this process and add a debugging tool to catch wh
From: Michal Hocko
xfs has defined PF_FSTRANS to declare a scope GFP_NOFS semantic quite
some time ago. We would like to make this concept more generic and use
it for other filesystems as well. Let's start by giving the flag a
more genric name PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS which is in line with an ex
On Wed 27-04-16 09:07:02, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:56:11PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > GFP_NOFS context is used for the following 4 reasons currently
> > - to prevent from deadlocks when the lock held by the a
On Wed 27-04-16 13:54:35, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
Ups missed Dave's note about:
> GFP_NOFS context is used for the following 4 reasons currently
> - to prevent from deadlocks when the lock held by the allocation
> context would be need
From: Michal Hocko
GFP_NOFS context is used for the following 4 reasons currently
- to prevent from deadlocks when the lock held by the allocation
context would be needed during the memory reclaim
- to prevent from stack overflows during the reclaim because
On Wed 27-04-16 08:58:45, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:56:12PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > THIS PATCH IS FOR TESTING ONLY AND NOT MEANT TO HIT LINUS TREE
> >
> > It is desirable to reduce the direct GFP_NO{FS,IO
rom 1968c0a8ace4090a9deca8f4c1a206ee546e595a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 22:32:57 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] fold me "mm: introduce memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} API"
Lockdep infrastructure is hooked into early hot paths of the allocator
so __lockdep_trace_alloc has to check for PF_
Hi Dave,
On Wed 27-04-16 13:54:35, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/kmem.h b/fs/xfs/kmem.h
> index 0d83f332e5c2..b35688a54c9a 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/kmem.h
> +++ b/fs/xfs/kmem.h
> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ kmem_flags_convert(xfs_km_flags_t flags)
> l
On Wed 27-04-16 22:09:27, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> [ 53.993480] [] mark_held_locks+0x5e/0x74
> [ 53.993480] [] lockdep_trace_alloc+0xb2/0xb5
> [ 53.993480] [] kmem_cache_alloc+0x36/0x2b0
Scratch that. I got it. It is the lockdep annotation which I got wrong
with my patch.
On Fri 29-04-16 15:35:42, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > we have discussed this topic at LSF/MM this year. There was a general
> > interest in the scope GFP_NOFS allocation context among some FS
> > developers. For
On Wed 27-04-16 11:41:51, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2016, at 5:54 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > --- a/fs/xfs/kmem.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/kmem.c
> > @@ -80,13 +80,13 @@ kmem_zalloc_large(size_t size, xfs_km_flags_t flags)
> > * context via PF_MEMALLOC_NOI
for you, or who you really are waiting on to free that
> memory.
>
> Whenever trying to free memory I think you need to do best-effort
> without blocking.
I agree with that. Or at least you have to wait on something that is
_guaranteed_ to make a forward progress.
On Thu 08-12-16 14:00:20, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Am 08.12.2016 um 11:33 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > Using kmalloc with the vmalloc fallback for larger allocations is a
> > common pattern in the kernel code. Yet we do not have any common
From: Michal Hocko
Using kmalloc with the vmalloc fallback for larger allocations is a
common pattern in the kernel code. Yet we do not have any common helper
for that and so users have invented their own helpers. Some of them are
really creative when doing so. Let's just add kv[mz]allo
On Fri 09-12-16 02:00:17, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 12:44:17PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:33:00AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > From: Michal Hocko
> > >
> > > Using kmalloc with the vmalloc fallback for larger a
On Fri 09-12-16 06:38:04, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 07:22:25AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > Easier to handle those in vmalloc() itself.
> >
> > I think there were some attempts in the past but some of the code paths
> > are burried too dee
On Fri 09-12-16 12:44:17, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:33:00AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > Using kmalloc with the vmalloc fallback for larger allocations is a
> > common pattern in the kernel code. Yet we do not hav
On Tue 13-12-16 14:07:33, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 11:14 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Are there any more comments or objections to this patch? Is this a good
> > start or kv[mz]alloc has to provide a way to cover GFP_NOFS users as
> > well in the init
Are there any more comments or objections to this patch? Is this a good
start or kv[mz]alloc has to provide a way to cover GFP_NOFS users as
well in the initial version.
On Thu 08-12-16 11:33:00, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko
>
> Using kmalloc with the vmalloc fallback f
On Tue 13-12-16 13:55:46, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2016, at 3:14 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > Are there any more comments or objections to this patch? Is this a good
> > start or kv[mz]alloc has to provide a way to cover GFP_NOFS users as
> > well in the i
From: Michal Hocko
Now that the page allocator offers __GFP_NOLOCKDEP let's introduce
KM_NOLOCKDEP alias for the xfs allocation APIs. While we are at it
also change KM_NOFS users introduced by b17cb364dbbb ("xfs: fix missing
KM_NOFS tags to keep lockdep happy") and use the ne
From: Michal Hocko
kmem_zalloc_large and _xfs_buf_map_pages use memalloc_noio_{save,restore}
API to prevent from reclaim recursion into the fs because vmalloc can
invoke unconditional GFP_KERNEL allocations and these functions might be
called from the NOFS contexts. The memalloc_noio_save will
From: Michal Hocko
now that we have memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} api we can mark the whole
transaction context as implicitly GFP_NOFS. All allocations will
automatically inherit GFP_NOFS this way. This means that we do not have
to mark any of those requests with GFP_NOFS and moreover all the
On Fri 16-12-16 16:05:58, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:07 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have posted the previous version here [1]. Since then I have added a
> > support to suppress reclaim lockdep warnings (__GFP_NOLOCKDEP) to allow
> &
From: Michal Hocko
This reverts commit c45653c341f5c8a0ce19c8f0ad4678640849cb86 because
sb_getblk_gfp is not really needed as
sb_getblk
__getblk_gfp
__getblk_slow
grow_buffers
grow_dev_page
gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_constraint(inode->i_mapping, ~__GFP_FS) | gfp
From: Michal Hocko
xfs has defined PF_FSTRANS to declare a scope GFP_NOFS semantic quite
some time ago. We would like to make this concept more generic and use
it for other filesystems as well. Let's start by giving the flag a
more genric name PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS which is in line with an ex
From: Michal Hocko
THIS PATCH IS FOR TESTING ONLY AND NOT MEANT TO HIT LINUS TREE
There are some code paths used by all the filesystems which we cannot
change to drop the GFP_NOFS, yet they generate a lot of warnings.
Provide {disable,enable}_scope_gfp_check to silence those.
alloc_page_buffers
Updated patch after Mike noticed a BUG_ON when KM_NOLOCKDEP is used.
---
>From 1497e713e11639157aef21cae29052cb3dc7ab44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:06:43 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] xfs: introduce and use KM_NOLOCKDEP to silence reclaim
lockdep fa
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
From: Michal Hocko
GFP_NOFS context is used for the following 5 reasons currently
- to prevent from deadlocks when the lock held by the allocation
context would be needed during the memory reclaim
- to prevent from stack overflows during the reclaim because
deletions(-)
Shortlog:
Michal Hocko (9):
lockdep: allow to disable reclaim lockup detection
xfs: introduce and use KM_NOLOCKDEP to silence reclaim lockdep false
positives
xfs: abstract PF_FSTRANS to PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS
mm: introduce memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} API
Hi,
I've forgot to add the following two patches which should help to
identify explicit GFP_NO{FS,IO} usage from withing a scope context. Such
a usage can be changed to the full GFP_KERNEL because all the calls
from within the NO{FS,IO} scope will drop the __GFP_FS resp. __GFP_IO
automatically and
From: Michal Hocko
kjournald2 is central to the transaction commit processing. As such any
potential allocation from this kernel thread has to be GFP_NOFS. Make
sure to mark the whole kernel thread GFP_NOFS by the memalloc_nofs_save.
Suggested-by: Jan Kara
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko
---
fs
On Fri 16-12-16 11:37:50, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 04:40:41PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Updated patch after Mike noticed a BUG_ON when KM_NOLOCKDEP is used.
> > ---
> > From 1497e713e11639157aef21cae29052cb3dc7ab44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > F
From: Michal Hocko
THIS PATCH IS FOR TESTING ONLY AND NOT MEANT TO HIT LINUS TREE
It is desirable to reduce the direct GFP_NO{FS,IO} usage at minimum and
prefer scope usage defined by memalloc_no{fs,io}_{save,restore} API.
Let's help this process and add a debugging tool to catch wh
On Fri 16-12-16 11:38:11, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 03:07:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ _xfs_buf_map_pages(
> > break;
> > vm_unmap_aliases();
> >
From: Michal Hocko
This reverts commit 216553c4b7f3e3e2beb4981cddca9b2027523928. Now that
the transaction context uses memalloc_nofs_save and all allocations
within the this context inherit GFP_NOFS automatically, there is no
reason to mark specific allocations explicitly.
This patch should not
On Wed 14-12-16 09:59:16, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 13-12-16 14:07:33, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 11:14 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Are there any more comments or objections to this patch? Is this a good
> > > start or kv[mz]alloc has to prov
On Tue 20-12-16 08:24:13, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 03:07:08PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > Now that the page allocator offers __GFP_NOLOCKDEP let's introduce
> > KM_NOLOCKDEP alias for the xfs allocation APIs. Wh
It seems that this email didn't get delivered due to some stupid gmail
spam policy. Let me try to repost via a different relay. Sorry to those
who have seen the original message and get a duplicate now.
On Wed 21-12-16 08:03:53, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 20-12-16 14:13:41, Andrew Mort
this API. Can we find
a way to use it?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/sla
On Tue 03-01-17 11:23:04, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/02/2017 02:37 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > Using kmalloc with the vmalloc fallback for larger allocations is a
> > common pattern in the kernel code. Yet we do not have any common helpe
On Mon 02-01-17 07:55:22, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 14:37 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > Using kmalloc with the vmalloc fallback for larger allocations is a
> > common pattern in the kernel code. Yet we do not have any common
From: Michal Hocko
Using kmalloc with the vmalloc fallback for larger allocations is a
common pattern in the kernel code. Yet we do not have any common helper
for that and so users have invented their own helpers. Some of them are
really creative when doing so. Let's just add kv[mz]allo
about potential split ups or cleanups few more days and then
repost the whole series.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170104150800.go25...@dhcp22.suse.cz
---
>From 0b92e4d2e040524b878d4e7b9ee88fbad5284b33 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 18:01:39 +0100
Subject: [P
>From 72a8493c4f692fca8980b59e0a79d09041164203 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:30:32 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] treewide: use kv[mz]alloc* rather than opencoded variants
There are many code paths opencoding kvmalloc. Let's use the helper
instead.
This shouldn&#x
From: Michal Hocko
This reverts commit c45653c341f5c8a0ce19c8f0ad4678640849cb86 because
sb_getblk_gfp is not really needed as
sb_getblk
__getblk_gfp
__getblk_slow
grow_buffers
grow_dev_page
gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_constraint(inode->i_mapping, ~__GFP_FS) | gfp
On Fri 06-01-17 13:09:36, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 07:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
> > index 8e4ea6cbe379..a2bfb85e60e5 100644
> > --- a/mm/util.c
> > +++ b/mm/util.c
> > @@ -348,8 +348,13 @@ void *kvmalloc_n
From: Michal Hocko
GFP_NOFS context is used for the following 5 reasons currently
- to prevent from deadlocks when the lock held by the allocation
context would be needed during the memory reclaim
- to prevent from stack overflows during the reclaim because
From: Michal Hocko
THIS PATCH IS FOR TESTING ONLY AND NOT MEANT TO HIT LINUS TREE
It is desirable to reduce the direct GFP_NO{FS,IO} usage at minimum and
prefer scope usage defined by memalloc_no{fs,io}_{save,restore} API.
Let's help this process and add a debugging tool to catch wh
From: Michal Hocko
kmem_zalloc_large and _xfs_buf_map_pages use memalloc_noio_{save,restore}
API to prevent from reclaim recursion into the fs because vmalloc can
invoke unconditional GFP_KERNEL allocations and these functions might be
called from the NOFS contexts. The memalloc_noio_save will
On Fri 06-01-17 14:29:33, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/02/2017 02:37 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > @@ -514,18 +514,9 @@ long vhost_dev_set_owner(struct vhost_dev *dev)
> > }
> > EXPO
From: Michal Hocko
kjournald2 is central to the transaction commit processing. As such any
potential allocation from this kernel thread has to be GFP_NOFS. Make
sure to mark the whole kernel thread GFP_NOFS by the memalloc_nofs_save.
Suggested-by: Jan Kara
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko
Reviewed
These two patches should help to identify explicit GFP_NO{FS,IO} usage
from withing a scope context and reduce such a usage as a result. Such
a usage can be changed to the full GFP_KERNEL because all the calls
from within the NO{FS,IO} scope will drop the __GFP_FS resp. __GFP_IO
automatically and i
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
From: Michal Hocko
This reverts commit 216553c4b7f3e3e2beb4981cddca9b2027523928. Now that
the transaction context uses memalloc_nofs_save and all allocations
within the this context inherit GFP_NOFS automatically, there is no
reason to mark specific allocations explicitly.
This patch should not
From: Michal Hocko
now that we have memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} api we can mark the whole
transaction context as implicitly GFP_NOFS. All allocations will
automatically inherit GFP_NOFS this way. This means that we do not have
to mark any of those requests with GFP_NOFS and moreover all the
From: Michal Hocko
xfs has defined PF_FSTRANS to declare a scope GFP_NOFS semantic quite
some time ago. We would like to make this concept more generic and use
it for other filesystems as well. Let's start by giving the flag a
more generic name PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS which is in line with an ex
de/linux/sched.h | 32 ++--
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 6 +-
lib/radix-tree.c | 2 ++
mm/page_alloc.c | 8 +---
mm/vmscan.c | 6 +++---
19 files changed, 109 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
Shortlog:
Michal Hocko (8):
lockdep: allow to disable reclaim l
From: Michal Hocko
THIS PATCH IS FOR TESTING ONLY AND NOT MEANT TO HIT LINUS TREE
There are some code paths used by all the filesystems which we cannot
change to drop the GFP_NOFS, yet they generate a lot of warnings.
Provide {disable,enable}_scope_gfp_check to silence those.
alloc_page_buffers
On Fri 06-01-17 15:36:04, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 03:20 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/netfilter/x_tables.c b/net/netfilter/x_tables.c
> > index 2ff499680cc6..0a5cc1237afe 100644
> > --- a/net/netfilter/x_tables.c
> > +++ b/net/netfilte
On Mon 09-01-17 13:59:05, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/06/2017 03:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > xfs has defined PF_FSTRANS to declare a scope GFP_NOFS semantic quite
> > some time ago. We would like to make this concept more gener
p_zone(gfp_mask);
struct scan_control sc = {
.nr_to_reclaim = max(nr_pages, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX),
- .gfp_mask = (gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask)),
+ .gfp_mask = gfp_mask,
.order =
On Mon 09-01-17 14:42:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 09-01-17 14:04:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
> Now that you have opened this I have noticed that the code is wrong
> here because GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE & ~GFP_RECLAIM_MASK would overwrite
> the removed GFP_FS.
Blee, it
On Mon 09-01-17 15:08:27, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/06/2017 03:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > kmem_zalloc_large and _xfs_buf_map_pages use memalloc_noio_{save,restore}
> > API to prevent from reclaim recursion into the fs bec
On Fri 06-01-17 13:09:36, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 07:12 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > While checking opencoded users I've encountered that vhost code would
> > really like to use kvmalloc with __GFP_REPEAT [1] so the following patch
> > adds support for __GF
On Tue 17-01-17 10:59:16, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:18:17PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > OK, so I've been staring into the code and AFAIU current->journal_info
> > can contain my stored information. I could either hijack part of t
On Tue 17-01-17 09:24:25, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-01-17 21:56:07, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:07PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > From: Michal Hocko
> > >
> > > This reverts commit 216553c4b7f3e3e2beb4981cddca9b2
On Tue 17-01-17 18:29:25, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 17-01-17 17:16:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > But before going to play with that I am really wondering whether we need
> > > > all this with no journal at all. AFAIU what Jack told me it is the
> > > > journ
On Thu 19-01-17 10:22:36, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 19-01-17 09:39:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 17-01-17 18:29:25, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Tue 17-01-17 17:16:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > > But before going to play with that I am really wo
On Mon 16-01-17 21:56:07, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:07PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > This reverts commit 216553c4b7f3e3e2beb4981cddca9b2027523928. Now that
> > the transaction context uses memalloc_nofs_sav
On Tue 17-01-17 14:04:03, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2017, at 8:59 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:18:17PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>
> >> OK, so I've been staring into the code and AFAIU current->journal_
On Mon 16-01-17 22:01:18, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 03:11:06PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > From: Michal Hocko
> >
> > This reverts commit c45653c341f5c8a0ce19c8f0ad4678640849cb86 because
> > sb_getblk_gfp is not really needed as
On Fri 27-01-17 01:13:18, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 08:44:55AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > I'm convinced the current series is OK, only real life will tell us
> > > > whether
> > > > we missed something or not ;)
>
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
