On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 10:36:11PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 25-06-20 11:48:32, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:31:16PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote: > > > I want a memalloc_nowait like we have memalloc_noio and memalloc_nofs > > > for an upcoming patch series, and Jens also wants it for non-blocking > > > io_uring. It turns out we already have dm-bufio which could benefit > > > from memalloc_nowait, so it may as well go into the tree now. > > > > > > The biggest problem is that we're basically out of PF_ flags, so we need > > > to find somewhere else to store the PF_MEMALLOC_NOWAIT flag. It turns > > > out the PF_ flags are really supposed to be used for flags which are > > > accessed from other tasks, and the MEMALLOC flags are only going to > > > be used by this task. So shuffling everything around frees up some PF > > > flags and generally makes the world a better place. > > > > So, uh, how does this intersect with the patch "xfs: reintroduce > > PF_FSTRANS for transaction reservation recursion protection" that > > re-adds PF_TRANS because uh I guess we lost some subtlety or another at > > some point? > > This is independent, really. It just relocates the NOFS flag. PF_TRANS > is reintroduced for a different reason. When I have replaced the > original PF_TRANS by PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS I didn't realized that xfs doesn't > need only the NOFS semantic but also the transaction tracking so this > cannot be a single bit only. So it has to be added back. But > PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS needs to stay for the scoped NOFS semantic. If XFS needs to track transactions, why doesn't it use current->journal_info like btrfs/ceph/ext4/gfs2/nilfs2/reiserfs? -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
