* 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