[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090902.231017.31926895.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: fengguang.wu@...el.com
Cc: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, acme@...stprotocols.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RESEND] tcp: replace hard coded GFP_KERNEL with
sk_allocation
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:04:07 +0800
> This fixed a lockdep warning which appeared when doing stress
> memory tests over NFS:
>
> inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage.
>
> page reclaim => nfs_writepage => tcp_sendmsg => lock sk_lock
>
> mount_root => nfs_root_data => tcp_close => lock sk_lock =>
> tcp_send_fin => alloc_skb_fclone => page reclaim
>
> David raised a concern that if the allocation fails in tcp_send_fin(), and it's
> GFP_ATOMIC, we are going to yield() (which sleeps) and loop endlessly waiting
> for the allocation to succeed.
>
> But fact is, the original GFP_KERNEL also sleeps. GFP_ATOMIC+yield() looks
> weird, but it is no worse the implicit sleep inside GFP_KERNEL. Both could
> loop endlessly under memory pressure.
>
> CC: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
> CC: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> CC: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Applied to net-next-2.6, thanks!
--
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