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]

Message-ID: <2f11576a0805051801xf144478pb7b04799f148db29@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 6 May 2008 10:01:26 +0900
From:	"KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	"Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.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

> > 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.

Ah, OK.
I'll add __GFP_FS and __GFP_IO check at next post.

Thanks!


>  > 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

absolutely.
--
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/