[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091118153302.3E20.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:56:46 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs-masters@....sgi.com,
xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] xfs: Don't use PF_MEMALLOC
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 04:23:43PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro 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.
>
> The xfsbufd is a woken run by a registered memory shaker. i.e. it
> runs when the system needs to reclaim memory. It forceѕ the
> delayed write metadata buffers (of which there can be a lot) to disk
> so that they can be reclaimed on IO completion. This IO submission
> may require ѕome memory to be allocated to be able to free that
> memory.
>
> Hence, AFAICT the use of PF_MEMALLOC is valid here.
Thanks a lot.
I have one additional question, may I ask you?
How can we calculate maximum memory usage in xfsbufd?
I'm afraid that VM and XFS works properly but adding two makes memory exhaust.
And, I conclude XFS doesn't need sharing reservation memory with VM,
it only need non failed allocation. right? IOW I'm prefer perter's
suggestion.
--
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