From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
It's OK to sleep here, we just don't want to recurse into the filesystem
as this writeout could be waiting on this.
Future work: the documentation for GFP_NOFS says "Please try to avoid
using this flag directly and instead use memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} to
mark the whole scope which cannot/shouldn't recurse into the FS layer
with a short explanation why. All allocation requests will inherit
GFP_NOFS implicitly."
But I'm not sure where to do this. Should the workqueue be arranging
that for us in the case of workqueues created with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM?
Reported-by: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammer.space>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Also, I've still got this one. (And still haven't looked into whether
it should be using a memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} elsewhere instead.)
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c b/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
index 08b5fa4a2852..41a971ac1c63 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/rpcb_clnt.c
@@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ void rpcb_getport_async(struct rpc_task *task)
goto bailout_nofree;
}
- map = kzalloc(sizeof(struct rpcbind_args), GFP_ATOMIC);
+ map = kzalloc(sizeof(struct rpcbind_args), GFP_NOFS);
if (!map) {
status = -ENOMEM;
dprintk("RPC: %5u %s: no memory available\n",
@@ -770,7 +770,7 @@ void rpcb_getport_async(struct rpc_task *task)
case RPCBVERS_4:
case RPCBVERS_3:
map->r_netid = xprt->address_strings[RPC_DISPLAY_NETID];
- map->r_addr = rpc_sockaddr2uaddr(sap, GFP_ATOMIC);
+ map->r_addr = rpc_sockaddr2uaddr(sap, GFP_NOFS);
if (!map->r_addr) {
status = -ENOMEM;
dprintk("RPC: %5u %s: no memory available\n",
--
2.19.2
