On Mon, 19 May 2014 22:59:15 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 20 May 2014 10:44:49 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > @@ -258,14 +258,23 @@ xfs_bmapi_allocate_worker( > > struct xfs_bmalloca *args = container_of(work, > > struct xfs_bmalloca, work); > > unsigned long pflags; > > + unsigned long new_pflags = PF_FSTRANS; > > > > - /* we are in a transaction context here */ > > - current_set_flags_nested(&pflags, PF_FSTRANS); > > + /* > > + * we are in a transaction context here, but may also be doing work > > + * in kswapd context, and hence we may need to inherit that state > > + * temporarily to ensure that we don't block waiting for memory reclaim > > + * in any way. > > + */ > > + if (args->kswapd) > > + new_pflags |= PF_MEMALLOC | PF_SWAPWRITE | PF_KSWAPD; > > So current_is_kswapd() returns true for a thread which is not kswapd. > That's a bit smelly. > > Should this thread really be incrementing KSWAPD_INODESTEAL instead of > PGINODESTEAL, for example? current_is_kswapd() does a range of things, > only one(?) of which you actually want. > > It would be cleaner to create a new PF_ flag to select just that > behavior. That's a better model than telling the world "I am magic and > special". Or a new __GFP_FLAG. > But we're awfully close to running out of PF_ space and I don't know if > this ugly justifies consuming a flag. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
