Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:03:15 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Nikita Danilov <nikita@clusterfs.com>
Cc: pmarques@grupopie.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       hch@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] per thread page reservation patch
Message-Id: <20050107150315.3c1714a4.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <m1d5wgrir7.fsf@clusterfs.com>
References: <20050103011113.6f6c8f44.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20050103114854.GA18408@infradead.org>
	<41DC2386.9010701@namesys.com>
	<1105019521.7074.79.camel@tribesman.namesys.com>
	<20050107144644.GA9606@infradead.org>
	<1105118217.3616.171.camel@tribesman.namesys.com>
	<41DEDF87.8080809@grupopie.com>
	<m1llb5q7qs.fsf@clusterfs.com>
	<20050107132459.033adc9f.akpm@osdl.org>
	<m1d5wgrir7.fsf@clusterfs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 971
Lines: 20

Nikita Danilov <nikita@clusterfs.com> wrote:
>
> > And the whole idea is pretty flaky really - how can one precalculate how
> > much memory an arbitrary md-on-dm-on-loop-on-md-on-NBD stack will want to
> > use?  It really would be better if we could drop the whole patch and make
> > reiser4 behave more sanely when its writepage is called with for_reclaim=1.
> 
> Reiser4 doesn't use this for ->writepage(), by the way. This is used by
> tree balancing code to assure that balancing cannot get -ENOMEM in the
> middle of tree modification, because undo is _so_ very complicated.

Oh.  And that involves performing I/O, yes?

Why does the filesystem risk going oom during the rebalance anyway?  Is it
doing atomic allocations?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/