From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p4P7kcaR127143 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 02:46:40 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 03:46:37 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: PF_FSTRANS should never be set in ->writepage Message-ID: <20110525074637.GA3056@infradead.org> References: <20110428125546.696493391@bombadil.infradead.org> <20110428130514.146517168@bombadil.infradead.org> <1306289929.2823.120.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1306289929.2823.120.camel@doink> 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: Alex Elder Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:18:49PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 08:55 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Now that we reject direct reclaim in addition to always using GFP_NOFS > > allocation there's no chance we'll ever end up in ->writepage with > > PF_FSTRANS set. Add a WARN_ON if we hit this case, and stop checking > > if we'd actually need to start a transaction. > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > Do the radix_tree_preload(GFP_KERNEL) calls in > xfs_iget_cache_miss() and xfs_mru_cache_insert() > pose any risk here? (I haven't really looked > closely, I just noticed that these were cases we > did not use GFP_NOFS.) They don't, given that we don't allow reclaim to proceed into ->writepage any more. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs