[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100615191716.GA6778@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:17:16 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, 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>
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 03:13:09PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Why? How about because you know the stack is not big enough
> to have the XFS call path on it twice? :)
>
> Isn't the whole purpose of this patch series to prevent writepage
> from being called by the VM, when invoked from a deep callstack
> like xfs writepage?
It's not invoked from xfs writepage, but from xfs_file_aio_write via
generic_file_buffered_write. Which isn't actually an all that deep
callstack, just en example of one that's alread bad enough to overflow
the stack.
> That sounds a lot like simply wanting to not have GFP_FS...
There's no point in sprinkling random GFP_NOFS flags. It's not just
the filesystem code that uses a lot of stack.
--
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