Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Do not call ->writepage[s] from direct reclaimand use a_ops->writepages() where possible

[Mel Gorman]

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 05:08:11AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 10:02:19AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > seeky patterns.  The second is that direct reclaim calling the filesystem
> > splices two potentially deep call paths together and potentially overflows
> > the stack on complex storage or filesystems. This series is an early draft
> > at tackling both of these problems and is in three stages.
> 
> Btw, one more thing came up when I discussed the issue again with Dave
> recently:
> 
>  - we also need to care about ->releasepage.  At least for XFS it
>    can end up in the same deep allocator chain as ->writepage because
>    it does all the extent state conversions, even if it doesn't
>    start I/O. 

Dang.

>    I haven't managed yet to decode the ext4/btrfs codepaths
>    for ->releasepage yet to figure out how they release a page that
>    covers a delayed allocated or unwritten range.
> 

If ext4/btrfs are also very deep call-chains and this series is going more
or less the right direction, then avoiding calling ->releasepage from direct
reclaim is one, somewhat unfortunate, option. The second is to avoid it on
a per-filesystem basis for direct reclaim using PF_MEMALLOC to detect
reclaimers and PF_KSWAPD to tell the difference between direct
reclaimers and kswapd.

Either way, these pages could be treated similar to dirty pages on the
dirty_pages list.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/