From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]:34834 "EHLO mail-wi0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754114AbbHFOev (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:34:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:34:48 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Andreas Dilger Cc: Johannes Weiner , Dave Chinner , Tetsuo Handa , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , "Theodore Ts'o" , Jan Kara , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Allow GFP_NOFS allocation to fail Message-ID: <20150806143447.GD12827@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: In-Reply-To: On Wed 05-08-15 20:58:25, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Aug 5, 2015, at 3:51 AM, mhocko@kernel.org wrote: [...] > > The rest are the FS specific patches to fortify allocations > > requests which are really needed to finish transactions without RO > > remounts. There might be more needed but my test case survives with > > these in place. > > Wouldn't it make more sense to order the fs-specific patches _before_ > the "GFP_NOFS can fail" patch (#3), so that once that patch is applied > all known failures have already been fixed? Otherwise it could show > test failures during bisection that would be confusing. As I write below. If maintainers consider them useful even when GFP_NOFS doesn't fail I will reword them and resend. But you cannot fix the world without breaking it first in this case ;) > > They would obviously need some rewording if they are going to be > > applied even without Patch3 and I will do that if respective > > maintainers will take them. Ext3 and JBD are going away soon so they > > might be dropped but they have been in the tree while I was testing > > so I've kept them. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs