From: "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>,
"Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
"linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"darrick.wong@oracle.com" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: 5.3-rc1 regression with XFS log recovery
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 02:44:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190821004413.GB20250@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190821002643.GK1119@dread.disaster.area>
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 10:26:43AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> After thinking on this for a bit, I suspect the better thing to do
> here is add a KM_ALIGNED flag to the allocation, so if the internal
> kmem_alloc() returns an unaligned pointer we free it and fall
> through to vmalloc() to get a properly aligned pointer....
>
> That way none of the other interfaces have to change, and we can
> then use kmem_alloc_large() everywhere we allocate buffers for IO.
> And we don't need new infrastructure just to support these debug
> configurations, either.
>
> Actually, kmem_alloc_io() might be a better idea - keep the aligned
> flag internal to the kmem code. Seems like a pretty simple solution
> to the entire problem we have here...
The interface sounds ok. The simple try and fallback implementation
OTOH means we always do two allocations іf slub debugging is enabled,
which is a little lasty. I guess the best we can do for 5.3 and
then figure out a way to avoid for later.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-21 0:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-16 20:59 5.3-rc1 regression with XFS log recovery Verma, Vishal L
2019-08-18 7:11 ` hch
2019-08-18 7:41 ` hch
2019-08-18 17:34 ` hch
2019-08-19 0:08 ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-19 3:49 ` hch
2019-08-19 4:11 ` hch
2019-08-19 4:22 ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-19 4:29 ` hch
2019-08-19 4:40 ` hch
2019-08-19 5:31 ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-20 6:14 ` hch
2019-08-20 4:41 ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-20 5:53 ` hch
2019-08-20 7:44 ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-20 8:13 ` Ming Lei
2019-08-20 9:24 ` Ming Lei
2019-08-20 16:30 ` Verma, Vishal L
2019-08-20 21:44 ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-20 22:08 ` Verma, Vishal L
2019-08-20 23:53 ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-21 2:19 ` Ming Lei
2019-08-21 1:56 ` Ming Lei
2019-08-19 4:15 ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-19 17:19 ` Verma, Vishal L
2019-08-21 0:26 ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-21 0:44 ` hch [this message]
2019-08-21 1:08 ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-21 1:56 ` Verma, Vishal L
2019-08-21 6:15 ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-26 17:32 ` Verma, Vishal L
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=20190821004413.GB20250@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.com \
/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