From: Taesoo Kim <taesoo@gatech.edu>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Sanidhya Kashyap <sanidhya.gatech@gmail.com>,
xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
changwoo@gatech.edu, sanidhya@gatech.edu, blee@gatech.edu,
csong84@gatech.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: use GFP_NOFS argument in radix_tree_preload
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:37:15 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150323053715.GK5170@taesoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150323052449.GO28621@dastard>
Hi Dave,
Thank you for letting us know. Since we are not an expert of XFS (nor
want to be), we really want to let you guys know it's potential bug
that you might miss (we are helping you!). And that's why Sanidhya
asked (rather than sending a patch) at the first place.
I agree that the comment is misleading and not correct, but probably
encouraging a student who spend times to clean up your mistake
might be better way to influence him rather than shouting :)
Taesoo
On 03/23/15 at 04:24pm, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 01:06:23AM -0400, Sanidhya Kashyap wrote:
> > From: Byoungyoung Lee <blee@gatech.edu>
> >
> > Following the convention of other file systems, GFP_NOFS
> > should be used as an argument for radix_tree_preload() instead
> > of GFP_KERNEL.
>
> "convention of other filesystems" is not a reason for changing from
> GFP_KERNEL to GFP_NOFS. There are rules for when GFP_NOFS needs to
> be used, and so we only need to change the code if one of those
> rules are triggered. i.e. inside a transaction, holding a lock that
> memory reclaim might require to make progress (e.g. ip->i_ilock,
> buffer locks, etc). The context in which the allocation is made will
> tell you whether GFP_KERNEL is safe or not.
>
> So while the change probably needs to be made, it needs to be made
> for the right reasons. I haven't looked at the code, but I have
> a pretty good idea of the context the allocation is being made
> under. I'd suggest documenting the call path down to
> xfs_mru_cache_insert(), because that will tell you exactly what
> context the allocaiton is being made in and hence tell everyone else
> the real reason we need to make this change...
>
> Call me picky, pendantic and/or annoying, but if you are looking at
> validating/correcting allocation flags then you need to understand
> the rules and context in which the allocation is being made...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-23 5:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-23 5:06 [PATCH] xfs: use GFP_NOFS argument in radix_tree_preload Sanidhya Kashyap
2015-03-23 5:24 ` Dave Chinner
2015-03-23 5:37 ` Taesoo Kim [this message]
2015-03-23 7:23 ` Dave Chinner
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=20150323053715.GK5170@taesoo.org \
--to=taesoo@gatech.edu \
--cc=blee@gatech.edu \
--cc=changwoo@gatech.edu \
--cc=csong84@gatech.edu \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sanidhya.gatech@gmail.com \
--cc=sanidhya@gatech.edu \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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