| To: | Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC]xfs: using GFP_NOFS for blkdev_issue_flush |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:37:46 +1000 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4F8BC30D.5040601@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <4F8BC112.9090508@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4F8BC30D.5040601@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 02:58:21PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > On 4/16/12 2:49 PM, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > >flush request is issued in transaction commit code path usually, so > >looks using > >GFP_KERNEL to allocate memory for flush request bio falls into the classic > >deadlock issue (memory reclaim recursion). Use GFP_NOFS to avoid recursion > >from reclaim context. Per Dave Chinner, there is only blkdev_issue_flush > >might > >be buggy here. But using GFP_NOFS by default for all calls should not > >matter. Can you update the commit message like I suggested previously? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Fragmentation Issue We Are Having, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 03/18] xfs: Do background CIL flushes via a workqueue, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC]xfs: using GFP_NOFS for blkdev_issue_flush, Mark Tinguely |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC]xfs: using GFP_NOFS for blkdev_issue_flush, Shaohua Li |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |