On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:18:49PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 08:55 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Now that we reject direct reclaim in addition to always using GFP_NOFS > > allocation there's no chance we'll ever end up in ->writepage with > > PF_FSTRANS set. Add a WARN_ON if we hit this case, and stop checking > > if we'd actually need to start a transaction. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > Do the radix_tree_preload(GFP_KERNEL) calls in > xfs_iget_cache_miss() and xfs_mru_cache_insert() > pose any risk here? (I haven't really looked > closely, I just noticed that these were cases we > did not use GFP_NOFS.) They don't, given that we don't allow reclaim to proceed into ->writepage any more. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
