* Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent
[not found] ` <aRzPqYfXc6mtR1U9@casper.infradead.org>
@ 2025-11-19 18:55 ` Vishal Moola (Oracle)
2025-11-21 7:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Vishal Moola (Oracle) @ 2025-11-19 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthew Wilcox, Christoph Hellwig, linux-xfs
Cc: Biju Das, akpm@linux-foundation.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, urezki@gmail.com
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 07:57:29PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 09:07:56AM -0800, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 04:14:01PM +0000, Biju Das wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I get below warning with today's next. Can you please suggest how to fix this warning?
> >
> > Thanks Biju. This has been fixed and will be in whenever Andrews tree
> > gets merged again.
>
> I see:
>
> Unexpected gfp: 0x1000000 (__GFP_NOLOCKDEP). Fixing up to gfp: 0x2dc0 (GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO|__GFP_NOWARN). Fix your code!
>
> I suspect __GFP_NOLOCKDEP should also be permitted by vmalloc.
As far as I can tell, theres only 1 caller of this.
Christoph started using vmalloc for this xfs call in commit
e2874632a621 ("xfs: use vmalloc instead of vm_map_area for buffer backing memory").
Looks like xfs uses the flag to prevent false positives. Do
we want to continue this? If so, I'll send a patch adding the flag to
the whitelist.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent
2025-11-19 18:55 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent Vishal Moola (Oracle)
@ 2025-11-21 7:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2025-11-21 7:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vishal Moola (Oracle)
Cc: Matthew Wilcox, Christoph Hellwig, linux-xfs, Biju Das,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
urezki@gmail.com
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:55:21AM -0800, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote:
> > Unexpected gfp: 0x1000000 (__GFP_NOLOCKDEP). Fixing up to gfp: 0x2dc0 (GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO|__GFP_NOWARN). Fix your code!
> >
> > I suspect __GFP_NOLOCKDEP should also be permitted by vmalloc.
>
> As far as I can tell, theres only 1 caller of this.
> Christoph started using vmalloc for this xfs call in commit
> e2874632a621 ("xfs: use vmalloc instead of vm_map_area for buffer backing memory").
>
> Looks like xfs uses the flag to prevent false positives. Do
> we want to continue this? If so, I'll send a patch adding the flag to
> the whitelist.
I'm not a fan of __GFP_NOLOCKDEP, but it is a valid hint for the
allocator, so it should be supported.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-11-21 7:29 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <TY3PR01MB11346E8536B69E11A9A9DAB0886D6A@TY3PR01MB11346.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
[not found] ` <aRyn7Ibaqa5rlHHx@fedora>
[not found] ` <aRzPqYfXc6mtR1U9@casper.infradead.org>
2025-11-19 18:55 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] make vmalloc gfp flags usage more apparent Vishal Moola (Oracle)
2025-11-21 7:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox