Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] btrfs: set AS_UNCHARGED on the btree_inode

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 05:50:28PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 04:40:33PM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote:
> > extent_buffers are global and shared so their pages should not belong to
> > any particular cgroup (currently whichever cgroups happens to allocate
> > the extent_buffer).
> > 
> > Btrfs tree operations should not arbitrarily block on cgroup reclaim or
> > have the shared extent_buffer pages on a cgroup's reclaim lists.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Burkov <boris@xxxxxx>
> 
> Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I think mm-tree is better for this series.

Agreed, majority of the changes are in MM code and the btrfs side is not
something that would affect other testing.

Acked-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux