Re: [patch 10/21] buffer heads: Support slab defrag

[Evgeniy Polyakov]

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?..

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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/