From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE68C4CEC9 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:13:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CF2206C2 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:13:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="xGE+918S" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727416AbfIQONN (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:13:13 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f67.google.com ([209.85.166.67]:41107 "EHLO mail-io1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727091AbfIQONN (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:13:13 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f67.google.com with SMTP id r26so7880985ioh.8 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:13:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dVDqz+rUD+OnR6W7YDSlajWZDua/pvLwmg4E+IqCu5M=; b=xGE+918S5B51H5CETuXGuR3m9kHErYYJES/11sO+RIqBzAqFpW3ntIsQDUBrrIrUmj LIh3iqAFmicykwNqdBMqV4Ic9/5rQWvYx72zj2xNSXKtwEYw8HcHTXBDxVuRd3ZQfnNk hZbR5QcT6EIiadTl7vBGaI6k6J5opDHGdTX0Pyd1wKcjoqN1IVWhl2eXWmNiZDN6g6kZ P2exEMy1uKH6sxtkfKvM9LJIYeQNkgwFioiciQcy7vfxjrQYJmx2p5swRQ5nr4elE4dN BP4KEn7cTNFJoXUSpd8ytJJhZuXlCvBcjgSXdDKQmUOwh+2R6mgGcSe9yTIPprp6NUpa M/Qw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dVDqz+rUD+OnR6W7YDSlajWZDua/pvLwmg4E+IqCu5M=; b=Sglz6eItKoMNvuERybpOPkQsgXf9P0wJhOxs/akfaanD/uaKKdnGVHLzeGzaRhXB/r FA3CkOga3/RNFtTVMaYv1jZqUzdB7HTZzTFDmonzTyIwUbZpX/eMwYwIZEjlBQOiZRjW LsY4qPswPChBmthyqtXHYNGWfY6g/gCSLXDawaEzuLi+iodI6sEjylrLccy9NPsbuoZg MEoJB+VVYTgKB/0CxCYN/QQWoY4o24nKrQG9q1qnQv+wuIN+qjQInbauuz0Zl7HV8j2V +S2KENHkMvzpsAAnljR/lIJPZfpepyWRmlMyzGFLv8hqnMLA/7X12vUPP949kXCYG/1h QzUw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWcP1suiq4uuuWvATMRyFkr9SYxa/pye9JVNZ3wzIyNkj1psGor pzoKwkk6tjFCNBENZdk7dC6YXK96M0Pg5Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxxSlQ69knggzSg3yDWlBZdxsp9hwUjDvPiCS8vC28lh96aTTWQ76a4012e3icfwqCBTsNQRQ== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:8e57:: with SMTP id q84mr1161988iod.41.1568729591169; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.50] ([65.144.74.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t9sm1715477iop.86.2019.09.17.07.13.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] blk-mq: Avoid memory reclaim when allocating To: xiubli@redhat.com, josef@toxicpanda.com Cc: mchristi@redhat.com, hch@infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org References: <20190917120910.24842-1-xiubli@redhat.com> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <426aa779-1011-5a75-bb73-ae573c229806@kernel.dk> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:13:08 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190917120910.24842-1-xiubli@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On 9/17/19 6:09 AM, xiubli@redhat.com wrote: > From: Xiubo Li > > Changed in V2: > - Addressed the comment from Ming Lei, thanks. > > Changed in V3: > - Switch to memalloc_noio_save/restore from Christoph's comment, thanks. This now seems to be a mix of both approaches, which I don't think makes sense at all. I think we should just stick to the gfp_t being passed in, and defining the standard mask for init time blk-mq memory allocations. -- Jens Axboe