[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C90139A.1080809@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:30:18 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Deadlock possibly caused by too_many_isolated.
On 09/14/2010 07:11 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
> Index: linux-2.6.32-SLE11-SP1/mm/vmscan.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.32-SLE11-SP1.orig/mm/vmscan.c 2010-09-15 08:37:32.000000000 +1000
> +++ linux-2.6.32-SLE11-SP1/mm/vmscan.c 2010-09-15 08:38:57.000000000 +1000
> @@ -1106,6 +1106,11 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis
> /* We are about to die and free our memory. Return now. */
> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> + if (!(sc->gfp_mask& __GFP_IO))
> + /* Not allowed to do IO, so mustn't wait
> + * on processes that might try to
> + */
> + return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> }
>
> /*
Close. We must also be sure that processes without __GFP_FS
set in their gfp_mask do not wait on processes that do have
__GFP_FS set.
Considering how many times we've run into a bug like this,
I'm kicking myself for not having thought of it :(
--
All rights reversed
--
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