From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f71.google.com (mail-pl0-f71.google.com [209.85.160.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9019B6B0006 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2018 15:08:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl0-f71.google.com with SMTP id 91-v6so5305976plf.6 for ; Sun, 08 Apr 2018 12:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org. [2607:7c80:54:e::133]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bj11-v6si984701plb.480.2018.04.08.12.08.35 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sun, 08 Apr 2018 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 12:08:25 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: Block layer use of __GFP flags Message-ID: <20180408190825.GC5704@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20180408065425.GD16007@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "hare@suse.com" , "martin@lichtvoll.de" , "oleksandr@natalenko.name" , "axboe@kernel.dk" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 04:40:59PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM wasn't stripped off on purpose for non-atomic > allocations. That was an oversight. OK, good. > Do you perhaps want me to prepare a patch that makes blk_get_request() again > respect the full gfp mask passed as third argument to blk_get_request()? I think that would be a good idea. If it's onerous to have extra arguments, there are some bits in gfp_flags which could be used for your purposes.