[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120515100829.GH29102@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:08:29 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, neilb@...e.de, hch@...radead.org,
michaelc@...wisc.edu, emunson@...bm.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] netvm: Prevent a stream-specific deadlock
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:47:14AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 10:14 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > @@ -289,6 +289,18 @@ void sk_clear_memalloc(struct sock *sk)
> > sock_reset_flag(sk, SOCK_MEMALLOC);
> > sk->sk_allocation &= ~__GFP_MEMALLOC;
> > static_key_slow_dec(&memalloc_socks);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * SOCK_MEMALLOC is allowed to ignore rmem limits to ensure forward
> > + * progress of swapping. However, if SOCK_MEMALLOC is cleared while
> > + * it has rmem allocations there is a risk that the user of the
> > + * socket cannot make forward progress due to exceeding the rmem
> > + * limits. By rights, sk_clear_memalloc() should only be called
> > + * on sockets being torn down but warn and reset the accounting if
> > + * that assumption breaks.
> > + */
> > + if (WARN_ON(sk->sk_forward_alloc))
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE() perhaps?
>
I do not expect SOCK_MEMALLOC to be cleared frequently at all with the
possible exception of swapon/swapoff stress tests. If the flag is being
cleared regularly with rmem tokens then that is interesting in itself
but a WARN_ON_ONCE would miss it.
> > + sk_mem_reclaim(sk);
> > }
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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