On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 07:37:17AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 03:30:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > I think the wording of this is too indirect. The reason we need to set
> > NOFS is because we could be doing writeback as part of reclaiming
> > memory, which m
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 03:30:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> I think the wording of this is too indirect. The reason we need to set
> NOFS is because we could be doing writeback as part of reclaiming
> memory, which means that we cannot recurse back into filesystems to
> satisfy the memory a
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:48:29PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Instead of a magic flag for xfs_trans_alloc, just ensure all callers
> that can't relclaim through the file system use memalloc_nofs_save to
> set the per-task nofs flag.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
> ---
> fs/xfs/libx
Instead of a magic flag for xfs_trans_alloc, just ensure all callers
that can't relclaim through the file system use memalloc_nofs_save to
set the per-task nofs flag.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
---
fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_shared.h | 1 -
fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c | 35 ++---
4 matches
Mail list logo