xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: fix some new memory allocation failures
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 08:07:19 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130902222004.GI12779@dastard>
References: <1378119180-31380-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5224C4E9.8080604@xxxxxxx> <20130902222004.GI12779@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 09/02/13 17:20, Dave Chinner wrote:
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.

In patch 2, why not drop the physically contiguous allocation attempt and just do the virtually contiguous allocation?

Things that now call kmem_zalloc_large() do not need a physically contiguous memory, it will simplify the allocation, it will leave the physically contiguous pieces for other Linux code that really need it.

--Mark.

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