Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755994AbZKQL6G (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:58:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755974AbZKQL6E (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:58:04 -0500 Received: from fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.37]:39374 "EHLO fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755865AbZKQL6D (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:58:03 -0500 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] mmc: Don't use PF_MEMALLOC Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20091117102903.7cb45ff3@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> References: <20091117161711.3DDA.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091117102903.7cb45ff3@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Message-Id: <20091117200618.3DFF.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.07 [ja] Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:58:04 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1797 Lines: 40 > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:17:50 +0900 (JST) > KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > Non MM subsystem must not use PF_MEMALLOC. Memory reclaim need few > > memory, anyone must not prevent it. Otherwise the system cause > > mysterious hang-up and/or OOM Killer invokation. > > So now what happens if we are paging and all our memory is tied up for > writeback to a device or CIFS etc which can no longer allocate the memory > to complete the write out so the MM can reclaim ? Probably my answer is not so simple. sorry. reason1: MM reclaim does both dropping clean memory and writing out dirty pages. reason2: if all memory is exhausted, maybe we can't recover it. it is fundamental limitation of Virtual Memory subsystem. and, min-watermark is decided by number of system physcal memory, but # of I/O issue (i.e. # of pages of used by writeback thread) is mainly decided # of devices. then, we can't gurantee min-watermark is sufficient on any systems. Only reasonable solution is mempool like reservation, I think. IOW, any reservation memory shouldn't share unrelated subsystem. otherwise we lost any gurantee. So, I think we need to hear why many developer don't use mempool, instead use PF_MEMALLOC. > Am I missing something or is this patch set not addressing the case where > the writeback thread needs to inherit PF_MEMALLOC somehow (at least for > the I/O in question and those blocking it) Yes, probably my patchset isn't perfect. honestly I haven't understand why so many developer prefer to use PF_MEMALLOC. -- 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/