Re: [lkp-robot] [btrfs] beeeccca9b: WARNING:at_mm/util.c:#kvmalloc_node

[David Sterba]

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 01:30:23PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Wed, 31 May 2017 16:58:48 +0200 David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 02:29:20AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/free-space-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/free-space-tree.c
> > > index fc0bd8406758..5abd3cd71144 100644
> > > --- a/fs/btrfs/free-space-tree.c
> > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/free-space-tree.c
> > > @@ -153,21 +153,18 @@ static inline u32 free_space_bitmap_size(u64 size, u32 sectorsize)
> > >  
> > >  static u8 *alloc_bitmap(u32 bitmap_size)
> > >  {
> > > -	void *mem;
> > > +	u8 *ret;
> > > +	unsigned int nofs_flag;
> > >  
> > >  	/*
> > > -	 * The allocation size varies, observed numbers were < 4K up to 16K.
> > > -	 * Using vmalloc unconditionally would be too heavy, we'll try
> > > -	 * contiguous allocations first.
> > > +	 * GFP_NOFS doesn't work with kvmalloc(), but we really can't recurse
> > > +	 * into the filesystem as the free space bitmap can be modified in the
> > > +	 * critical section of a transaction commit.
> > >  	 */
> > > -	if  (bitmap_size <= PAGE_SIZE)
> > > -		return kzalloc(bitmap_size, GFP_NOFS);
> > > -
> > > -	mem = kzalloc(bitmap_size, GFP_NOFS | __GFP_NOWARN);
> > > -	if (mem)
> > > -		return mem;
> > > -
> > > -	return __vmalloc(bitmap_size, GFP_NOFS | __GFP_ZERO, PAGE_KERNEL);
> > > +	nofs_flag = memalloc_nofs_save();
> > > +	ret = kvmalloc(bitmap_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +	memalloc_nofs_restore(nofs_flag);
> > > +	return ret;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  int convert_free_space_to_bitmaps(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> > > 
> > > Dave, would you prefer to replace the patch we have now or do an
> > > incremental patch on top of it?  
> > 
> > I'll drop the patch "btrfs: Use kvzalloc instead of kzalloc/vmalloc in
> > alloc_bitmap", please send an updated version.
> 
> Ping?

Now fixed, sorry. Top commit 736202ae51c50a6063087011073e91b6a6ae92e9. I
didn't notice the patch got back to for-next through another branch.