[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C178868.2010002@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:04:24 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] vmscan: Do not writeback pages in direct reclaim
On 06/15/2010 09:59 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:34:18AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 06/15/2010 07:45 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +/* kswapd and memcg can writeback as they are unlikely to overflow stack */
>>>>> +static inline bool reclaim_can_writeback(struct scan_control *sc)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return current_is_kswapd() || sc->mem_cgroup != NULL;
>>>>> +}
>> If direct reclaim can overflow the stack, so can direct
>> memcg reclaim. That means this patch does not solve the
>> stack overflow, while admitting that we do need the
>> ability to get specific pages flushed to disk from the
>> pageout code.
>>
>
> What path is taken with memcg != NULL that could overflow the stack? I
> couldn't spot one but mm/memcontrol.c is a bit tangled so finding all
> its use cases is tricky. The critical path I had in mind though was
> direct reclaim and for that path, memcg == NULL or did I miss something?
mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim -> try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages
--
All rights reversed
--
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