> On Dec 20, 2018, at 10:42 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
"as a writeout"
> 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?
There seem to be plenty of uses of GFP_NOFS in NFS and sunrpc.
That sounds like a big project.
> 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
>
--
Chuck Lever
