linux-kernel - Re: [-mm][PATCH 4/5] core of reclaim throttle

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 5 May 2008 20:43:18 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	"KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [-mm][PATCH 4/5] core of reclaim throttle

On Tue, 6 May 2008 07:23:18 +0900
"KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:

> hmmm, AFAIK,
> on current kernel, sometimes __GFP_IO task wait for non __GFP_IO task
> by lock_page().
> Is this wrong?

This is fine.

The problem is adding a code path that causes non __GFP_IO tasks to
wait on __GFP_IO tasks.  Then you can have a deadlock.
 
> therefore my patch care only recursive reclaim situation.
> I don't object to your opinion. but I hope understand exactly your opinion.

I believe not all non __GFP_IO or non __GFP_FS calls are recursive
reclaim, but there are some other code paths too.  For example from
fs/buffer.c

-- 
All rights reversed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/