From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f197.google.com (mail-pf0-f197.google.com [209.85.192.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ACEC6B0003 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 05:00:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f197.google.com with SMTP id e14so4815468pfi.9 for ; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 02:00:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 1-v6si16402365plk.308.2018.04.09.02.00.19 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Apr 2018 02:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 11:00:16 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: Block layer use of __GFP flags Message-ID: <20180409090016.GA21771@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180408065425.GD16007@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180408190825.GC5704@bombadil.infradead.org> <63d16891d115de25ac2776088571d7e90dab867a.camel@wdc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <63d16891d115de25ac2776088571d7e90dab867a.camel@wdc.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "willy@infradead.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "hare@suse.com" , "martin@lichtvoll.de" , "oleksandr@natalenko.name" , "axboe@kernel.dk" On Mon 09-04-18 04:46:22, Bart Van Assche wrote: [...] [...] > diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c b/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c > index ad8a125defdd..3ddb464b72e6 100644 > --- a/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c > +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-pm.c > @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ int generic_ide_resume(struct device *dev) > > memset(&rqpm, 0, sizeof(rqpm)); > rq = blk_get_request_flags(drive->queue, REQ_OP_DRV_IN, > - BLK_MQ_REQ_PREEMPT); > + BLK_MQ_REQ_PREEMPT, __GFP_RECLAIM); Is there any reason to use __GFP_RECLAIM directly. I guess you wanted to have GFP_NOIO semantic, right? So why not be explicit about that. Same for other instances of this flag in the patch -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs