From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: don't fail xfs_extent_busy allocation
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 10:42:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170207094220.GC15267@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170206164318.GF57865@bfoster.bfoster>
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 11:43:18AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> I was thinking more about the repeated allocation/free of said
> structures than lifetime, particularly since we've converted an
> opportunistic allocation to a required/sleeping one.
The allocator is one and the same - the different is that kmalloc
does a trivial lookup of the cache to use first, while kmem_cache_alloc
specifies an exact cache.
> Just a thought though.. looking again, should we have KM_NOFS here as
> well?
xfs_extent_busy_insert is always called inside transaction context,
so we get implicit NOFS semantics. The existing code already relies
on that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-07 9:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-29 18:43 improve busy extent handling and add async discard support Christoph Hellwig
2017-01-29 18:43 ` [PATCH 1/4] xfs: don't fail xfs_extent_busy allocation Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-03 15:20 ` Brian Foster
2017-02-04 9:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-06 16:43 ` Brian Foster
2017-02-07 9:42 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2017-01-29 18:43 ` [PATCH 2/4] xfs: improve handling of busy extents in the low-level allocator Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-03 15:22 ` Brian Foster
2017-02-04 9:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-03 16:22 ` Brian Foster
2017-02-04 9:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-06 16:47 ` Brian Foster
2017-02-07 9:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-07 13:13 ` Brian Foster
2017-02-07 15:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-01-29 18:43 ` [PATCH 3/4] xfs: improve busy extent sorting Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-03 15:22 ` Brian Foster
2017-02-04 9:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-01-29 18:43 ` [PATCH 4/4] xfs: don't block the log commit handler for discards Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-03 16:22 ` Brian Foster
2017-02-04 9:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-06 16:49 ` Brian Foster
2017-02-07 9:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-02-05 17:11 improve busy extent handling and add async discard support V2 Christoph Hellwig
2017-02-05 17:11 ` [PATCH 1/4] xfs: don't fail xfs_extent_busy allocation Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170207094220.GC15267@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).