| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <E1HIweQ-0005RQ-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:45:06 +0100 From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org Subject: Re: dirty balancing deadlock > > > > If so, writes to B will decrease the dirty memory threshold. > > > > > > Yes, but not by enough. Say A dirties a 1100 pages, limit is 1000. > > > Some pages queued for writeback (doesn't matter how much). B writes > > > back 1, 1099 dirty remain in A, zero in B. balance_dirty_pages() for > > > B doesn't know that there's nothing more to write back for B, it's > > > just waiting there for those 1099, which'll never get written. > > > > hm, OK, arguable. I guess something like this.. > > Doesn't help the fuse case, but does seem to help the loopback mount > one. No sorry, it doesn't even help the loopback deadlock. It sometimes takes quite a while to trigger... Miklos - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists