Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-18321-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 20:21:00 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: Hou Tao <houtao@huaweicloud.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux.dev, houtao1@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] virtiofs: use GFP_NOFS when enqueuing request through
 kworker
Message-ID: <ZZhkrOdbau2O/B59@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240105105305.4052672-1-houtao@huaweicloud.com>
 <ZZhjzwnQUEJhNJiq@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZZhjzwnQUEJhNJiq@redhat.com>

On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 03:17:19PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 06:53:05PM +0800, Hou Tao wrote:
> > From: Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
> > 
> > When invoking virtio_fs_enqueue_req() through kworker, both the
> > allocation of the sg array and the bounce buffer still use GFP_ATOMIC.
> > Considering the size of both the sg array and the bounce buffer may be
> > greater than PAGE_SIZE, use GFP_NOFS instead of GFP_ATOMIC to lower the
> > possibility of memory allocation failure.
> > 
> 
> What's the practical benefit of this patch. Looks like if memory
> allocation fails, we keep retrying at interval of 1ms and don't
> return error to user space.

You don't deplete the atomic reserves unnecessarily?