On 1/6/2024 4:21 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 03:17:19PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 06:53:05PM +0800, Hou Tao wrote: >>> From: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> When invoking virtio_fs_enqueue_req() through kworker, both the >>> allocation of the sg array and the bounce buffer still use GFP_ATOMIC. >>> Considering the size of both the sg array and the bounce buffer may be >>> greater than PAGE_SIZE, use GFP_NOFS instead of GFP_ATOMIC to lower the >>> possibility of memory allocation failure. >>> >> What's the practical benefit of this patch. Looks like if memory >> allocation fails, we keep retrying at interval of 1ms and don't >> return error to user space. > You don't deplete the atomic reserves unnecessarily? Beside that, I think the proposed GFP_NOFS may reduce unnecessary retries. I Should mention that in the commit message. Should I post a v3 to do that ?
