[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1211151126440.9273@eggly.anvils>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:56:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Jaegeuk Hanse <jaegeuk.hanse@...il.com>
cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix shmem_getpage_gfp VM_BUG_ON
Offtopic...
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Jaegeuk Hanse wrote:
>
> Another question. Why the function shmem_fallocate which you add to kernel
> need call shmem_getpage?
Because shmem_getpage(_gfp) is where shmem's
page lookup and allocation complexities are handled.
I assume the question behind your question is: why does shmem actually
allocate pages for its fallocate, instead of just reserving the space?
I did play with just reserving the space, with more special entries in
the radix_tree to note the reservations made. It should be doable for
the vm_enough_memory and sbinfo->used_blocks reservations.
What absolutely deterred me from taking that path was the mem_cgroup
case: shmem and swap and memcg are not easy to get working right together,
and nobody would thank me for complicating memcg just for shmem_fallocate.
By allocating pages, the pre-existing memcg code just works; if we used
reservations instead, we would have to track their memcg charges in some
additional new way. I see no justification for that complication.
Hugh
--
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