[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100616051133.GC10687@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:11:33 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...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>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] vmscan: Do not writeback pages in direct reclaim
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:20:24AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> BTW, copy_from_user/copy_to_user is _real_ problem, I'm afraid following
> much more than memcg.
>
> handle_mm_fault()
> -> handle_pte_fault()
> -> do_wp_page()
> -> balance_dirty_page_rate_limited()
> -> balance_dirty_pages()
> -> writeback_inodes_wbc()
> -> writeback_inodes_wb()
> -> writeback_sb_inodes()
> -> writeback_single_inode()
> -> do_writepages()
> -> generic_write_pages()
> -> write_cache_pages() // use on-stack pagevec.
> -> writepage()
Yes, this is a massive issue. Strangely enough I just wondered about
this callstack as balance_dirty_pages is the only place calling into the
per-bdi/sb writeback code directly instead of offloading it to the
flusher threads. It's something that should be fixed rather quickly
IMHO. write_cache_pages and other bits of this writeback code can use
quite large amounts 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