Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Aug 2020 08:56:01 +1000 | From | Dave Chinner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 05/15] mm: allow read-ahead with IOCB_NOWAIT set |
| |
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:44:21AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 6/24/20 10:41 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 09:35:19AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 6/24/20 9:00 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>> On 6/23/20 7:46 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >>>> I'd be quite happy to add a gfp_t to struct readahead_control. > >>>> The other thing I've been looking into for other reasons is adding > >>>> a memalloc_nowait_{save,restore}, which would avoid passing down > >>>> the gfp_t. > >>> > >>> That was my first thought, having the memalloc_foo_save/restore for > >>> this. I don't think adding a gfp_t to readahead_control is going > >>> to be super useful, seems like the kind of thing that should be > >>> non-blocking by default. > >> > >> We're already doing memalloc_nofs_save/restore in > >> page_cache_readahead_unbounded(), so I think all we need is to just do a > >> noio dance in generic_file_buffered_read() and that should be enough. > > > > I think we can still sleep though, right? I was thinking more > > like this: > > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/willy/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/memalloc > > Yeah, that's probably better. How do we want to handle this? I've already > got the other bits queued up. I can either add them to the series, or > pull a branch that'll go into Linus as well.
Jens, Willy,
Now that this patch has been merged and IOCB_NOWAIT semantics ifor buffered reads are broken in Linus' tree, what's the plan to get this regression fixed before 5.9 releases?
Cheers,
Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com
| |