Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751797AbbHSSRp (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:17:45 -0400 Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:52481 "EHLO mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750978AbbHSSRn (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:17:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:17:36 -0400 From: Chris Mason To: CC: , Josef Bacik , David Sterba , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] btrfs: fortification for GFP_NOFS allocations Message-ID: <20150819181736.GA23654@ret.DHCP.TheFacebook.com> Mail-Followup-To: Chris Mason , mhocko@kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Josef Bacik , David Sterba , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1439986661-15896-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1439986661-15896-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12) X-Originating-IP: [192.168.52.123] X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe X-FB-Internal: Safe X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151,1.0.33,0.0.0000 definitions=2015-08-19_08:2015-08-18,2015-08-19,1970-01-01 signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1388 Lines: 30 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 02:17:39PM +0200, mhocko@kernel.org wrote: > Hi, > these two patches were sent as a part of a larger RFC which aims at > allowing GFP_NOFS allocations to fail to help sort out memory reclaim > issues bound to the current behavior > (http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143876830616538&w=2). > > It is clear that move to the GFP_NOFS behavior change is a long term > plan but these patches should be good enough even with that change in > place. It also seems that Chris wasn't opposed and would be willing to > take them http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143991792427165&w=2 so here we > come. I have rephrased the changeslogs to not refer to the patch which > changes the NOFS behavior. > > Just to clarify. These two patches allowed my particular testcase > (mentioned in the cover referenced above) to survive it doesn't mean > that the failing GFP_NOFS are OK now. I have seen some other places > where GFP_NOFS allocation is followed by BUG_ON(ALLOC_FAILED). I have > not encountered them though. > > Let me know if you would prefer other changes. My plan is to start with these two and take more as required. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/