On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 11:43:18AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > I was thinking more about the repeated allocation/free of said > structures than lifetime, particularly since we've converted an > opportunistic allocation to a required/sleeping one. The allocator is one and the same - the different is that kmalloc does a trivial lookup of the cache to use first, while kmem_cache_alloc specifies an exact cache. > Just a thought though.. looking again, should we have KM_NOFS here as > well? xfs_extent_busy_insert is always called inside transaction context, so we get implicit NOFS semantics. The existing code already relies on that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
