Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1648267
| From | Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() |
| Date | 2017-05-23 18:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tKlap-5Kr-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <tJWYp-6XB-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tJX87-7gH-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <tJZWi-z3-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tK2ht-1Tl-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKbb4-7G0-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, 23 May 2017, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 22-05-17 13:35:41, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Mon, 22 May 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote: > [...] > > > While adding the __GFP_NOFAIL flag would serve to document expectations > > > I'm left unconvinced that the memory allocator will _not fail_ for an > > > order-0 page -- as Mikulas said most ioctls don't need more than 4K. > > > > __GFP_NOFAIL would make no sense in kvmalloc() calls, ever, it would never > > fallback to vmalloc :) > > Sorry, I could have been more specific. You would have to opencode > kvmalloc obviously. It is documented to not support this flag for the > reasons you have mentioned above. > > > I'm hoping this can get merged during the 4.12 window to fix the broken > > commit d224e9381897. > > I obviously disagree. Relying on memory reserves for _correctness_ is > clearly broken by design, full stop. But it is dm code and you are going > it is responsibility of the respective maintainers to support this code. Block loop device is broken in the same way - it converts block requests to filesystem reads and writes and those FS reads and writes allocate memory. Network block device needs an userspace daemon to perform I/O. iSCSI also needs to allocate memory to perform I/O. NFS and other networking filesystems are also broken in the same way (they need to receive a packet to acknowledge a write and packet reception needs to allocate memory). So - what should these *broken* drivers do to reduce the possibility of the deadlock? Mikulas > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs >
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH] dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com> - 2017-05-19 05:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-05-19 09:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> - 2017-05-20 01:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-05-22 11:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> - 2017-05-22 14:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-05-22 14:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> - 2017-05-22 17:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-05-22 17:10 +0200
Re: dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> - 2017-05-22 20:10 +0200
Re: dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2017-05-22 22:40 +0200
Re: dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> - 2017-05-23 01:40 +0200
Re: dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-05-23 08:10 +0200
Re: dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> - 2017-05-23 18:50 +0200
Re: dm ioctl: Restore __GFP_HIGH in copy_params() Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-05-23 09:00 +0200
csiph-web