[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100525140742.GM12852@horn.ics.muni.cz>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 16:07:42 +0200
From: Zdenek Salvet <salvet@....muni.cz>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Cc: Lukas Hejtmanek <xhejtman@....muni.cz>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
salvet@....muni.cz
Subject: Re: Deadlock in NFSv4 in all kernels
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:39:25AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> The schemes I'm talking about typically had special memory pools
> preallocated for use by daemons, and would label the daemons using some
> equivalent of the PF_MEMALLOC flag to prevent recursion into the
> filesystem.
Yes. In my opinion, proper solution has to be careful at three points:
- daemons must be carefully written not to require much memory
- daemons should 'inherit' PF_MEMALLOC while processing upcalls
- FS should try to flush fast enough (what W. Adamson wrote) and
delay new allocations when it cannot
Regards,
Zdenek Salvet salvet@....muni.cz
Institute of Computer Science of Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
and CESNET, z.s.p.o., Prague, Czech Republic
Phone: ++420-549 49 6534 Fax: ++420-541 212 747
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teamwork is essential -- it allows you to blame someone else.
--
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