Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 17:09:43 -0600
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@wedev4u.fr>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: vmalloc with GFP_NOFS
Message-ID: <20180424230943.GY17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20180424162712.GL17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <3732370.1623zxSvNg@blindfold>
 <20180424192803.GT17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <3894056.cxOY6eVYVp@blindfold>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3894056.cxOY6eVYVp@blindfold>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 25-04-18 00:18:40, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 24. April 2018, 21:28:03 CEST schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > > Also only for debugging.
> > > Getting rid of vmalloc with GFP_NOFS in UBIFS is no big problem.
> > > I can prepare a patch.
> > 
> > Cool!
> > 
> > Anyway, if UBIFS has some reclaim recursion critical sections in general
> > it would be really great to have them documented and that is where the
> > scope api is really handy. Just add the scope and document what is the
> > recursion issue. This will help people reading the code as well. Ideally
> > there shouldn't be any explicit GFP_NOFS in the code.
> 
> So in a perfect world a filesystem calls memalloc_nofs_save/restore and
> always uses GFP_KERNEL for kmalloc/vmalloc?

Exactly! And in a dream world those memalloc_nofs_save act as a
documentation of the reclaim recursion documentation ;)
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs