[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100702123315.667c6eac.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:33:15 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/14] Avoid overflowing of stack during page reclaim V3
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:34:34 +0100
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> Here is V3 that depends again on flusher threads to do writeback in
> direct reclaim rather than stack switching which is not something I'm
> likely to get done before xfs/btrfs are ignoring writeback in mainline
> (phd sucking up time).
IMO, implemetning stack switching for this is not a good idea. We
_already_ have a way of doing stack-switching. It's called
"schedule()".
The only reason I can see for implementing an in-place stack switch
would be if schedule() is too expensive. And if we were to see
excessive context-switch overheads in this code path (and we won't)
then we should get in there and try to reduce the contect switch rate
first.
--
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