xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: fix some new memory allocation failures

To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: fix some new memory allocation failures
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 08:20:04 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5224C4E9.8080604@xxxxxxx>
References: <1378119180-31380-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5224C4E9.8080604@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 09/02/13 05:52, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >Hi folks,
> >
> >These failures are a result of order-4 allocations being done on v5
> >filesystems to support the large ACL count xattrs. The first patch
> >puts out usual falbback to vmalloc workaround in place. The second
> >patch factors all the places we now have this fallback-to-vmalloc
> >and makes it transparent to the callers.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Dave.
> 
> Thanks for clean up. Broken record time: Do we really need order
> allocation in the filesystem? Esp in xfs_ioctl.c.

I don't understand your question. Are you asking why we need high
order allocation?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>