On Fri 16-12-16 13:15:18, Chris Mason wrote: > On 12/16/2016 02:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > I believe the right way to go around this is to pursue what I've started > > in [1]. I will try to prepare something for testing today for you. Stay > > tuned. But I would be really happy if somebody from the btrfs camp could > > check the NOFS aspect of this allocation. We have already seen > > allocation stalls from this path quite recently > > Just double checking, are you asking why we're using GFP_NOFS to avoid going > into btrfs from the btrfs writepages call, or are you asking why we aren't > allowing highmem? I am more interested in the NOFS part. Why cannot this be a full GFP_KERNEL context? What kind of locks we would lock up when recursing to the fs via slab shrinkers? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>