On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:46:55PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 01-02-18 10:41:26, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 09:24:38PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > This would both document the context > > > and also limit NOFS allocations to bare minumum. > > > > Yup, most of XFS already uses implicit GFP_NOFS allocation calls via > > the transaction context process flag manipulation. > > Yeah, xfs is in quite a good shape. There are still around 40+ KM_NOFS > users. Are there any major obstacles to remove those? Or is this just > "send patches" thing. They need to be looked at on a case by case basis - many of them are the "shut up lockdep false positives" workarounds because the code is called from multiple memory reclaim contexts. In other cases they might actually be needed. If you send patches, it'll kinda force us to look at them and say yay/nay :P > Compare that to > $ git grep GFP_NOFS -- fs/btrfs/ | wc -l > 272 Fair point. :P Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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>
