Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC)

[Nick Piggin]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 12:15:01PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > > <> What Christoph is proposing is doing recursive reclaim and not
> > > > initiating writeout. This will only work _IFF_ there are clean pages
> > > > about. Which in the general case need not be true (memory might be
> > > > packed with anonymous pages - consider an MPI cluster doing computation
> > > > stuff). So this gets us a workload dependant solution - which IMHO is
> > > > bad!
> > > 
> > > Although you will quite likely have at least a couple of MB worth of
> > > clean program text. The important part of recursive reclaim is that it
> > > doesn't so easily allow reclaim to blow all memory reserves (including
> > > interrupt context). Sure you still have theoretical deadlocks, but if
> > > I understand correctly, they are going to be lessened. I would be
> > > really interested to see if even just these recursive reclaim patches
> > > eliminate the problem in practice.
> > 
> > were we much bothered by the buffered write deadlock? - why accept a
> > known deadlock if a solid solution is quite attainable?
> 
> Buffered write deadlock? How does that exactly occur? Memory allocation in 
> the writeout path while we hold locks?

Different topic. Peter was talking about the write(2) write deadlock
where we take a page fault while holding a page lock (which leads to
lock inversion, taking the lock twice etc.)

-
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/