Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 4/4] mtd: nand: nandsim: convert to memalloc_noreclaim_*()
- To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...1285...>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...1290...>
- Cc: nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...1551...>, linux-scsi@...25..., netdev@...25..., linux-kernel@...25..., Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...1303...>, linux-block@...25..., linux-mm@...1312..., Johannes Weiner <hannes@...1554...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...133...>, open-iscsi@...2887..., Mel Gorman <mgorman@...2888...>
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 4/4] mtd: nand: nandsim: convert to memalloc_noreclaim_*()
- From: Richard Weinberger <richard@...2889...>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 13:36:22 +0200
- Message-id: <ee6649ed-b0e8-1c59-c193-d1688fdfe7f5@...2889...>
- In-reply-to: <20170405113157.GM6035@...2894...>
- References: <20170405074700.29871-1-vbabka@...1290...> <20170405074700.29871-5-vbabka@...1290...> <20170405113157.GM6035@...2894...>
Michal,
Am 05.04.2017 um 13:31 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> On Wed 05-04-17 09:47:00, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Nandsim has own functions set_memalloc() and clear_memalloc() for robust
>> setting and clearing of PF_MEMALLOC. Replace them by the new generic helpers.
>> No functional change.
>
> This one smells like an abuser. Why the hell should read/write path
> touch memory reserves at all!
Could be. Let's ask Adrian, AFAIK he wrote that code.
Adrian, can you please clarify why nandsim needs to play with PF_MEMALLOC?
Thanks,
//richard
Reply to: