Re: [patch 10/21] buffer heads: Support slab defrag
From: Evgeniy Polyakov
Date: Wed May 21 2008 - 02:16:46 EST
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 04:28:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton (akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> It's more than efficiency. There are lots and lots of things we cannot
> do in direct-reclaim context.
> a) Can't lock pages (well we kinda sorta could, but generally code
> will just trylock)
> b) Cannot rely on the inode or the address_space being present in
> memory after we have unlocked the page.
> c) Cannot run iput(). Or at least, we couldn't five or six years
> ago. afaik nobody has investigated whether the situation is now
> better or worse.
> d) lots of deadlock scenarios - need to test __GFP_FS basically everywhere
> in which you share code with normal writeback paths.
> Plus e), f), g) and h). Direct-reclaim is a hostile environment.
> Things like b) are a real killer - nasty, subtle, rare,
> memory-pressure-dependent crashes.
Which basically means we can not do direct writeback at reclaim time?..
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/