From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:52481 "EHLO mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750978AbbHSSRn (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:17:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:17:36 -0400 From: Chris Mason To: CC: , Josef Bacik , David Sterba , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] btrfs: fortification for GFP_NOFS allocations Message-ID: <20150819181736.GA23654@ret.DHCP.TheFacebook.com> References: <1439986661-15896-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <1439986661-15896-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 02:17:39PM +0200, mhocko@kernel.org wrote: > Hi, > these two patches were sent as a part of a larger RFC which aims at > allowing GFP_NOFS allocations to fail to help sort out memory reclaim > issues bound to the current behavior > (http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143876830616538&w=2). > > It is clear that move to the GFP_NOFS behavior change is a long term > plan but these patches should be good enough even with that change in > place. It also seems that Chris wasn't opposed and would be willing to > take them http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=143991792427165&w=2 so here we > come. I have rephrased the changeslogs to not refer to the patch which > changes the NOFS behavior. > > Just to clarify. These two patches allowed my particular testcase > (mentioned in the cover referenced above) to survive it doesn't mean > that the failing GFP_NOFS are OK now. I have seen some other places > where GFP_NOFS allocation is followed by BUG_ON(ALLOC_FAILED). I have > not encountered them though. > > Let me know if you would prefer other changes. My plan is to start with these two and take more as required. -chris