Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-18460-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] virtiofs: use GFP_NOFS when enqueuing request through
 kworker
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: 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
References: <20240105105305.4052672-1-houtao@huaweicloud.com>
 <ZZhjzwnQUEJhNJiq@redhat.com> <ZZhkrOdbau2O/B59@casper.infradead.org>
From: Hou Tao <houtao@huaweicloud.com>
Message-ID: <1e4b0ed0-8879-9044-75b6-d8371ddc50fc@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2024 10:48:37 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ZZhkrOdbau2O/B59@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US


On 1/6/2024 4:21 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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?
Beside that, I think the proposed GFP_NOFS may reduce unnecessary
retries. I Should mention that in the commit message. Should I post a v3
to do that ?