Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a7:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m36-v6csp3489868imm; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 05:50:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpc0nx2JrsbiWg2nNjOWCN8kWkp0oc+OU5YXqBgICmnYsrSp6kfUbiEh4HXuUrG7h1Ttjdaf X-Received: by 2002:a65:5a8a:: with SMTP id c10-v6mr1412724pgt.389.1531831828825; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 05:50:28 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1531831828; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=DWLHVuSZpvnKLtGrcxwfXpOo6NN2OTs7nZjqEJTPGeFvtElZJDZTsEzZhFSOpqxgkW WyvkCvXiZGcZE5ykZyK7tnKo2mDhDUuGqAqR7/V5knRV8vI+mKyBFg3KUuFJXKrHYeL+ akVxbbfoJm5S42rDg0fLD5VtXzDD40QKc8bw05sQCOTNTRj8pmaMFWrE/3bMOEZKysAS pNQe3PadIPnDnONHZSuAIctQwhaLitvM7ZUjxXLNgLWCQGProqJsfSPLWR4qNAf+FKD+ YsqrpD8Gb+JLHGmKgGQU+rORZKhVtsu87JBFBOo75j4Kh8Ptt666/cFskCYj3ora5IVD 1BrQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=T3XkdFv5WL1yT9+UaudAUyBUQjzLhM2DFvmoBOb19H8=; b=rxTo++PM2y78G1NQ6upI8KmqfriAAg6Zcj3vloxvXFrEp1N4sou0Ho9rkigRFE3JNY zQE3LTbxfHpJkJoQdXmQXkCM0wSb1hoWerNZaEGHbkupgObl3ERXuCLTOP8za8+jT2Eb R7wKGpgnp7sTC85dR8DFuImEZGdspEAkEUQpK4NhIzCsLC96SedsN5pssspPYtY0S48A LZWw+Y3Dcqxf/Ab897W2xYIW+wEM/xmT+BlwXOgY0rrnhx8/hEt7Yu0gwsOcD0xgQaOT /MQ5ziVC8tB7d8lk49wdRVGawvoOYl4eDVGosglLSoPeU7fC5azC++MbZLD436JGGELd kW4Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id r4-v6si902762pgb.97.2018.07.17.05.50.13; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 05:50:28 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731696AbeGQNWE (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:22:04 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:55642 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731423AbeGQNWD (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:22:03 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF9FAD3C; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:49:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:49:30 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Cc: LKML , Artem Bityutskiy , Richard Weinberger , David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Boris Brezillon , Marek Vasut , Cyrille Pitchen , Andreas Dilger , Steven Whitehouse , Bob Peterson , Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker , Adrian Hunter , Philippe Ombredanne , Kate Stewart , Mikulas Patocka , 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: <20180717124930.GB30926@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180424162712.GL17484@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180424183536.GF30619@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180424183536.GF30619@thunk.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue 24-04-18 14:35:36, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:27:12AM -0600, Michal Hocko wrote: > > fs/ext4/xattr.c > > > > What to do about this? Well, there are two things. Firstly, it would be > > really great to double check whether the GFP_NOFS is really needed. I > > cannot judge that because I am not familiar with the code. > > *Most* of the time it's not needed, but there are times when it is. > We could be more smart about sending down GFP_NOFS only when it is > needed. If we are sending too many GFP_NOFS's allocations such that > it's causing heartburn, we could fix this. (xattr commands are rare > enough that I dind't think it was worth it to modulate the GFP flags > for this particular case, but we could make it be smarter if it would > help.) There still seem to be ext4_kvmalloc(NOFS) callers in the ext4 code. Do you have any plans to get rid of those? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs