[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100615164507.GA31952@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:45:07 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
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>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Do not call ->writepage[s] from direct reclaim
and use a_ops->writepages() where possible
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 06:14:19PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Again not what looks like from the stack trace. Also grepping for
> PF_MEMALLOC in fs/xfs shows nothing. In fact it's ext4_write_inode
> that skips the write if PF_MEMALLOC is set, not writepage apparently
> (only did a quick grep so I might be wrong). I suspect
> ext4_write_inode is the case I just mentioned about slab shrink, not
> ->writepage ;).
>
> inodes are small, it's no big deal to keep an inode pinned and not
> slab-reclaimable because dirty, while skipping real writepage in
> memory pressure could really open a regression in oom false positives!
> One pagecache much bigger than one inode and there can be plenty more
> dirty pagecache than inodes.
Btw, those comments in ext3/ext4 don't make much sense. The only
time iput_final ever calls into ->write_inode is when the filesystem
is beeing unmounted, which never happens with PF_MEMALLOC set.
--
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