[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070924145855.662b1489@twins>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:58:55 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: couple rcu and memory reclaim
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:18:30 +0530 Balbir Singh
<balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> Only kswapd can do this, direct reclaim has deadlock potential.
> >> Yes, but not in all cases, do you want to add any gfp_mask
> >> based smartness for direct reclaim?
> >
> > gfp_mask doesn't carry the needed information. It depends on whether
> > the current context holds a rcu_read_lock().
> >
>
> What I meant was that nobody would hold rcu_read_lock() and pass
> gfp_mask of GFP_KERNEL in scan_control or to do_try_to_free_pages()
>
> > so something like:
> >
> > rcu_read_lock()
> > foo = kmalloc(sizeof(foo))
>
> At this point, you really can't use GFP_KERNEL, since rcu_read_lock()
> disables pre-emption in the current kernel, ideally you should see
> a might_sleep() BUG.
>
> > new_slab()
> > __alloc_pages()
> > try_to_free_pages()
> > synchronise_rcu() <-- deadlock
> > rcu_read_unlock()
I guess I've been using preemptibe rcu for way too long. Would need to
clean up some of -rt to make this true there, but should be doable
indeed.
-
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