Re: [PATCH 0/7] Kill PF_MEMALLOC abuse

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> > I agree in principle with removing non-VM users of PF_MEMALLOC, but I 
> > think it should be left to the individual subsystem maintainers to apply 
> > or ack since the allocations may depend on the __GFP_NORETRY | ~__GFP_WAIT 
> > behavior of PF_MEMALLOC.  This could be potentially dangerous for a 
> > PF_MEMALLOC user if allocations made by the kthread, for example, should 
> > never retry for orders smaller than PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER or block on 
> > direct reclaim.
> 
> if there is so such reason. we might need to implement another MM trick.
> but keeping this strage usage is not a option. All memory freeing activity
> (e.g. page out, task killing) need some memory. we need to protect its
> emergency memory. otherwise linux reliability decrease dramatically when
> the system face to memory stress.
> 

Right, that's why I agree with trying to remove non-VM use of PF_MEMALLOC, 
but I think this patchset needs to go through the individual subsystem 
maintainers so they can ensure the conversion doesn't cause undesirable 
results if their kthreads' memory allocations depend on the __GFP_NORETRY 
behavior that PF_MEMALLOC ensures.  Otherwise it looks good.
--
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/