Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1573187 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction" Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-03 16:50 +0100

#1573187 — Re: [PATCH 8/8] Revert "ext4: fix wrong gfp type under transaction"

On Mon 30-01-17 09:12:10, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 27-01-17 11:40:42, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:37:35AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > If this ever turn out to be a problem and with the vmapped stacks we
> > > have good chances to get a proper stack traces on a potential overflow
> > > we can add the scope API around the problematic code path with the
> > > explanation why it is needed.
> > 
> > Yeah, or maybe we can automate it?  Can the reclaim code check how
> > much stack space is left and do the right thing automatically?
> 
> I am not sure how to do that. Checking for some magic value sounds quite
> fragile to me. It also sounds a bit strange to focus only on the reclaim
> while other code paths might suffer from the same problem.
> 
> What is actually the deepest possible call chain from the slab reclaim
> where I stopped? I have tried to follow that path but hit the callback
> wall quite early.
>  
> > The reason why I'm nervous is that nojournal mode is not a common
> > configuration, and "wait until production systems start failing" is
> > not a strategy that I or many SRE-types find.... comforting.
> 
> I understand that but I would be much more happier if we did the
> decision based on the actual data rather than a fear something would
> break down.

ping on this. I would really like to move forward here and target 4.11
merge window. Is your concern so serious to block this patch?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web