[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1282772125.1975.153.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:35:25 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"cluster-devel@...hat.com" <cluster-devel@...hat.com>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org" <reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] mm: add nofail variants of kmalloc kcalloc and
kzalloc
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 16:53 -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 03:35:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > While I appreciate that it might be somewhat (a lot) harder for a
> > filesystem to provide that guarantee, I'd be deeply worried about your
> > claim that its impossible.
> >
> > It would render a system without swap very prone to deadlocks. Even with
> > the very tight dirty page accounting we currently have you can fill all
> > your memory with anonymous pages, at which point there's nothing free
> > and you require writeout of dirty pages to succeed.
>
> For file systems that do delayed allocation, the situation is very
> similar to swapping over NFS. Sometimes in order to make some free
> memory, you need to spend some free memory...
Which means you need to be able to compute a bounded amount of that
memory.
> which implies that for
> these file systems, being more aggressive about triggering writeout,
> and being more aggressive about throttling processes which are
> creating too many dirty pages, especially dirty delayed allocaiton
> pages (regardless of whether this is via write(2) or accessing mmapped
> memory), is a really good idea.
That seems unrelated, the VM has a strict dirty limit and controls
writeback when needed. That part works.
> A pool of free pages which is reserved for routines that are doing
> page cleaning would probably also be a good idea. Maybe that's just
> retrying with GFP_ATOMIC if a normal allocation fails, or maybe we
> need our own special pool, or maybe we need to dynamically resize the
> GFP_ATOMIC pool based on how many subsystems might need to use it....
We have a smallish reserve, accessible with PF_MEMALLOC, but its use is
not regulated nor bounded, it just mostly works good enough.
--
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