[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1470125172.30985.4.camel@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:06:12 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Geliang Tang <geliangtang@....com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com>,
"GeyslanG.Bem@...yakshetra" <geyslan@...il.com>,
Masanari Iida <standby24x7@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
Saurabh Karajgaonkar <skarajga@...teon.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] usb: host: u132-hcd: Remove deprecated
create_singlethread_workqueue
On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 10:20 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> > If any real IO depends on those devices then this is not sufficient and
> > they need some form of guarantee for progress (aka mempool).
>
> Oliver, Alan, what do you think? If USB itself can't operate without
> allocating memory during transactions, whatever USB storage drivers
It cannot. The IO must be described to the hardware with a data
structure in memory.
> are doing isn't all that meaningful. Can we proceed with the
> workqueue patches? Also, it could be that the only thing GFP_NOIO and
> GFP_ATOMIC are doing is increasing the chance of IO failures under
> memory pressure. Maybe it'd be a good idea to reconsider the
> approach?
We had actual deadlocks with GFP_KERNEL. It seems to me that the SCSI
layer can deal with IO that cannot be completed due to a lack of memory
at least somewhat, but a deadlock within a driver would obviously be
deadly. So I don't think that mempools would remove the need for
GFP_NOIO as there are places in usbcore we cannot enter the page
laundering path from. They are an additional need.
Regards
Oliver
Powered by blists - more mailing lists