[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200902101656.13792.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:56:13 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, thomas.pi@...or.dea,
Yuriy Lalym <ylalym@...il.com>, ltt-dev@...ts.casi.polymtl.ca,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm fix page writeback accounting to fix oom condition under heavy I/O
On Tuesday 10 February 2009 16:23:56 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > So this patch fixes this behavior by only decrementing the page
> > accounting _after_ the block I/O writepage has been done.
>
> This makes no sense, really.
>
> Or rather, I don't mind the notion of updating the counters only after IO
> per se, and _that_ part of it probably makes sense. But why is it that you
> only then fix up two of the call-sites. There's a lot more call-sites than
> that for this function.
Well if you do that, then I'd think you also have to change some
calculations that today use dirty+writeback.
In some ways it does make sense, but OTOH it is natural in the
pagecache since it was introduced to treat writeback as basically
equivalent to dirty. So writeback && !dirty pages shouldn't cause
things to blow up, or if it does then hopefully it is a simple
bug somewhere.
--
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