On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 03:13:09PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > Why? How about because you know the stack is not big enough > to have the XFS call path on it twice? :) > > Isn't the whole purpose of this patch series to prevent writepage > from being called by the VM, when invoked from a deep callstack > like xfs writepage? It's not invoked from xfs writepage, but from xfs_file_aio_write via generic_file_buffered_write. Which isn't actually an all that deep callstack, just en example of one that's alread bad enough to overflow the stack. > That sounds a lot like simply wanting to not have GFP_FS... There's no point in sprinkling random GFP_NOFS flags. It's not just the filesystem code that uses a lot of stack. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>