On Tue 04-10-16 09:39:48, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > The gfp_mask that propagates from __do_fault() or do_page_mkwrite() is fine > > because at that point it is correct. But once we grab filesystem locks > > which are not reclaim safe, we should update vmf->gfp_mask we pass further > > down into DAX code to not contain __GFP_FS (that's a bug we apparently have > > there). And inside DAX code, we definitely are not generally safe to add > > __GFP_FS to mapping_gfp_mask(). Maybe we'd be better off propagating struct > > vm_fault into this function, using passed gfp_mask there and make sure > > callers update gfp_mask as appropriate. > > Yep, that makes sense to me. In reviewing your set it also occurred to me that > we might want to stick a struct vm_area_struct *vma pointer in the vmf, since > you always need a vma when you are using a vmf, but we pass them as a pair > everywhere. Actually, vma pointer will be in struct vm_fault after my DAX write-protection series. So once that lands, we can clean up whatever duplicit function parameters... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>