Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
From:   "NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de>
To:     trondmy@kernel.org
Cc:     linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] Crossing our fingers is not a strategy
In-reply-to: <20220322011618.1052288-1-trondmy@kernel.org>
References: <20220322011618.1052288-1-trondmy@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:57:16 +1100
Message-id: <164807623644.6096.16226567748741917177@noble.neil.brown.name>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022, trondmy@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>
> 
> We'd like to avoid GFP_NOWAIT whenever possible, because it has no fall-
> back reclaim strategy for dealing with a failure of the initial
> allocation.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that.  GFP_NOWAIT will ensure kswapd
runs on failure, so waiting briefly and retrying (which sunrpc does on
-ENOMEM (at least ni call_refreshresult) is a valid fallback.

However, I do like the new rpc_task_gfp_mask() and that fact that you
have used it quite widely.

So: looks good to me.  I haven't carefully reviewed each patch enough to
say Reviewed-by, but I did see an easy problems.

Thanks,
NeilBrown