[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: OOM: Better, but still there on 4.9
On Fri 16-12-16 13:15:18, Chris Mason wrote:
> On 12/16/2016 02:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I believe the right way to go around this is to pursue what I've started
> > in [1]. I will try to prepare something for testing today for you. Stay
> > tuned. But I would be really happy if somebody from the btrfs camp could
> > check the NOFS aspect of this allocation. We have already seen
> > allocation stalls from this path quite recently
> Just double checking, are you asking why we're using GFP_NOFS to avoid going
> into btrfs from the btrfs writepages call, or are you asking why we aren't
> allowing highmem?

I am more interested in the NOFS part. Why cannot this be a full
GFP_KERNEL context? What kind of locks we would lock up when recursing
to the fs via slab shrinkers?
Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-16 23:15    [W:0.110 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site