| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Отличие форс-мажора и временной невозможности исполнения. Включение в договор, арбитраж |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH v2] xfs: check magic numbers in dir3 leaf verifier first, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: fix some new memory allocation failures, Mark Tinguely |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: fix some new memory allocation failures, Mark Tinguely |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |