From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail106.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.42]:48325 "EHLO mail106.syd.optusnet.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726551AbfFXXAP (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 19:00:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 08:59:04 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] xfs: remove XFS_TRANS_NOFS Message-ID: <20190624225904.GB7777@dread.disaster.area> References: <20190624055253.31183-1-hch@lst.de> <20190624055253.31183-7-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190624055253.31183-7-hch@lst.de> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Darrick J . Wong" , Damien Le Moal , Andreas Gruenbacher , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 07:52:47AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Instead of a magic flag for xfs_trans_alloc, just ensure all callers > that can't relclaim through the file system use memalloc_nofs_save to > set the per-task nofs flag. I'm thinking that it would be a good idea to add comments to explain exactly what the memalloc_nofs_save/restore() are protecting where they are used. Right now the XFS_TRANS_NOFS flag is largely undocumented, so a reader is left guessing as to why the flag is necessary and what contexts it may apply to. Hence I think we should fix that while we are changing over to a different GFP_NOFS allocation context mechanism.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com