From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n3K12oJ1018367 for ; Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:02:50 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:02:37 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] [RESEND][PATCH 6/7] xfs: Remove code handling bio_alloc failure with __GFP_WAIT Message-ID: <20090420010237.GF16929@discord.disaster> References: <200904151609.30677.knikanth@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200904151609.30677.knikanth@suse.de> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Nikanth Karthikesan Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Jens Axboe On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 04:09:30PM +0530, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote: > Resending as I accidentally missed Jens earlier. > > Jens, can you merge this as well. > > Thanks > Nikanth > > Remove code handling bio_alloc failure with __GFP_WAIT. > GFP_NOIO implies __GFP_WAIT. Not sure that is right. The intent of the code is that if we can't get a large bio immediately, try a smaller one which is more likely to succeed when we are under memory pressure. i.e. we will get IO moving faster than if we waited for a maximally sized biovec to be allocated. IOWs, I don't think __GFP_WAIT is implied by this code, regardless of what GFP_NOIO actually means now. The same code fragment can be found in NILFS, and it uses GFP_NOWAIT, not GFP_NOIO. I suspect that this is what this XFS code should be changed to use to retain the original intent of the code.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner dgc@evostor.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs