[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200911171138.02458.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:38:02 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] mmc: Don't use PF_MEMALLOC
Am Dienstag, 17. November 2009 11:32:36 schrieb Minchan Kim:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:17:50 +0900 (JST)
> >
> > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >> Non MM subsystem must not use PF_MEMALLOC. Memory reclaim need few
> >> memory, anyone must not prevent it. Otherwise the system cause
> >> mysterious hang-up and/or OOM Killer invokation.
> >
> > So now what happens if we are paging and all our memory is tied up for
> > writeback to a device or CIFS etc which can no longer allocate the memory
> > to complete the write out so the MM can reclaim ?
> >
> > Am I missing something or is this patch set not addressing the case where
> > the writeback thread needs to inherit PF_MEMALLOC somehow (at least for
> > the I/O in question and those blocking it)
>
> I agree.
> At least, drivers for writeout is proper for using PF_MEMALLOC, I think.
For the same reason error handling should also use it, shouldn't it?
Regards
Oliver
--
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