On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 02:01:04AM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > > > > > workqueue: WQ_MEM_RECLAIM nvme-wq:nvme_rdma_reconnect_ctrl_work > > > > > [nvme_rdma] is flushing !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM ib_addr:process_one_req [ib_core] > > > > > > > > And why does nvme-wq need WQ_MEM_RECLAIM flag? I wonder if it is really > > > > needed. > > > > > > Adding Sagi Grimberg to cc, he probably knows and can explain it better than me. > > > > We already allocate so much memory on these paths it is pretty > > nonsense to claim they are a reclaim context. One allocation on the WQ > > is not going to be the problem. > > > > Probably this nvme stuff should not be re-using a reclaim marke dWQ > > for memory allocating work like this, it is kind of nonsensical. > > A controller reset runs on this workqueue, which should succeed to allow > for pages to be flushed to the nvme disk. So I'd say its kind of > essential that this sequence has a rescuer thread. So don't run the CM stuff on the same WQ, go to another one without the reclaim mark? Jason
