[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090715074503.GC6145@localhost>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:45:03 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: "herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sk_lock: inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W}
usage
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:04:32AM +0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:02:47 +0800
>
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 04:00:17PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> >>
> >> The (sk_allocation & ~__GFP_WAIT) cases should be rare, but I guess
> >> the networking code shall do it anyway, because sk_allocation defaults
> >> to GFP_KERNEL. It seems that currently the networking code simply uses
> >> a lot of GFP_ATOMIC, do they really mean "I cannot sleep"?
> >
> > Yep because they're done from softirq context.
>
> Yes, this is the core issue.
Yes, that's general true. But..
> All of Wu's talk about how "GFP_ATOMIC will wake up kswapd and
> therefore can succeed just as well as GFP_KERNEL" is not relevant,
> because GFP_ATOMIC means sleeping is not allowed.
We are talking about tcp_send_fin() here, which can sleep.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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