[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0804071409150.2886@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: fix sense_slab/bio swapping livelock
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
> I wonder if we can get away with a SLAB_IO flag that you can use to annotate
> caches that participate in writeout and the allocator could keep some spare
> pages around that can be handed out for them in case of OOM...
Actually, I don't think this is SLAB-specific, since there are potentially
the same issues for pages.
I suspect the right thing to do is not to mark them for "IO", but mark
them for "short-lived", and allow short-lived allocations that don't have
extended lifetimes to succeed even when a "real" allocation wouldn't.
When we are under memory pressure, a normal allocation generally needs to
clear up enough memory from elsewhere to succeed. But a short-lived
allocation without any long-term lifetimes would be known to release its
memory back to the pool, so it can be allowed to go ahead when a normal
memory allocation would not.
Examples of short-lived allocations:
- IO requests
- temporary network packets that don't get queued up (eg "ACK" packet) as
opposed to those that do get queued (incoming _or_ outgoing queues)
- things like the temporary buffers for "getname()/putname()" etc.
That said, even a lot of temporary allocations can at times have issues.
If your IO layer is dead, your IO request queues that _should_ have been
very temporary may end up staying around for a long time. But I do think
that it makes sense to prioritize allocations that are known to be short-
lived.
(It might also allows us to allocate them from different pools and just
generally have other heuristics for cache behaviour - short-lived
allocations simply have different behaviour)
Linus
--
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