Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:14:56 +0200 | From | Michal Hocko <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] memalloc_noio: update the comment to make it cleaner |
| |
On Wed 18-09-19 16:02:52, Xiubo Li wrote: > On 2019/9/18 15:25, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 18-09-19 04:58:20, xiubli@redhat.com wrote: > > > From: Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com> > > > > > > The GFP_NOIO means all further allocations will implicitly drop > > > both __GFP_IO and __GFP_FS flags and so they are safe for both the > > > IO critical section and the the critical section from the allocation > > > recursion point of view. Not only the __GFP_IO, which a bit confusing > > > when reading the code or using the save/restore pair. > > Historically GFP_NOIO has always implied GFP_NOFS as well. I can imagine > > that this might come as an surprise for somebody not familiar with the > > code though. > > Yeah, it true. > > > I am wondering whether your update of the documentation > > would be better off at __GFP_FS, __GFP_IO resp. GFP_NOFS, GFP_NOIO level. > > This interface is simply a way to set a scoped NO{IO,FS} context. > > The "Documentation/core-api/gfp_mask-from-fs-io.rst" is already very detail > about them all. > > This fixing just means to make sure that it won't surprise someone who is > having a quickly through some code and not familiar much about the detail. > It may make not much sense ?
Ohh, I do not think this would be senseless. I just think that the NOIO implying NOFS as well should be described at the level where they are documented rather than the api you have chosen. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
| |