From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932766AbWF0I4R (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:56:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932757AbWF0I4R (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:56:17 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:8646 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932766AbWF0I4Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:56:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:51:24 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Nathan Scott Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Steven Whitehouse , Linus Torvalds , David Teigland , Patrick Caulfield , Kevin Anderson , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GFS2 and DLM Message-ID: <20060627085124.GA1487@elte.hu> References: <1150805833.3856.1356.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com> <20060623144928.GA32694@infradead.org> <20060626200300.GA15424@elte.hu> <20060627063339.GA27938@elte.hu> <20060627181632.A1297906@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20060627082240.GA672@elte.hu> <20060627184237.A1295371@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060627184237.A1295371@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.1 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.1 required=5.9 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5033] 0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Nathan Scott wrote: > > and since XFS makes use of KM_SLEEP in 130+ callsites, that means it > > is in essence using GFP_NOFAIL massively! > > Their locations have been carefully audited and understood. The > original issue here was IRIX being able to do a very good of > preventing kernel memory allocation failures, which I suspect caused > the original XFS guys to be fairly relaxed in their handling of memory > allocation failures. Its caused us no end of pain with the Linux port, > I assure you. i know it's a hard problem, and i'm not suggesting at all that this is easy to fix. Nevertheless there are 130 allocation callsites in XFS that do implicit GFS_NOFAIL in essence, and 7 callsites in GFS2 that mention __GFS_NOFAIL explicitly. Ext3 does __GFP_NOFAIL in its journalling code too. Reiser too. Ingo