> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 08:34:29PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > This problem is not a filesystem recursion problem which is, as I > > > understand it, what GFP_NOFS is used to prevent. It's _any_ kernel > > > code that uses signficant stack before trying to allocate memory > > > that is the problem. e.g a select() system call: > > > > > > Depth Size Location (47 entries) > > > ----- ---- -------- > > > 0) 7568 16 mempool_alloc_slab+0x16/0x20 > > > 1) 7552 144 mempool_alloc+0x65/0x140 > > > 2) 7408 96 get_request+0x124/0x370 > > > 3) 7312 144 get_request_wait+0x29/0x1b0 > > > 4) 7168 96 __make_request+0x9b/0x490 > > > 5) 7072 208 generic_make_request+0x3df/0x4d0 > > > 6) 6864 80 submit_bio+0x7c/0x100 > > > 7) 6784 96 _xfs_buf_ioapply+0x128/0x2c0 [xfs] > > > .... > > > 32) 3184 64 xfs_vm_writepage+0xab/0x160 [xfs] > > > 33) 3120 384 shrink_page_list+0x65e/0x840 > > > 34) 2736 528 shrink_zone+0x63f/0xe10 > > > 35) 2208 112 do_try_to_free_pages+0xc2/0x3c0 > > > 36) 2096 128 try_to_free_pages+0x77/0x80 > > > 37) 1968 240 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x3e4/0x710 > > > 38) 1728 48 alloc_pages_current+0x8c/0xe0 > > > 39) 1680 16 __get_free_pages+0xe/0x50 > > > 40) 1664 48 __pollwait+0xca/0x110 > > > 41) 1616 32 unix_poll+0x28/0xc0 > > > 42) 1584 16 sock_poll+0x1d/0x20 > > > 43) 1568 912 do_select+0x3d6/0x700 > > > 44) 656 416 core_sys_select+0x18c/0x2c0 > > > 45) 240 112 sys_select+0x4f/0x110 > > > 46) 128 128 system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > > > > > There's 1.6k of stack used before memory allocation is called, 3.1k > > > used there before ->writepage is entered, XFS used 3.5k, and > > > if the mempool needed to allocate a page it would have blown the > > > stack. If there was any significant storage subsystem (add dm, md > > > and/or scsi of some kind), it would have blown the stack. > > > > > > Basically, there is not enough stack space available to allow direct > > > reclaim to enter ->writepage _anywhere_ according to the stack usage > > > profiles we are seeing here.... > > > > > > > I'm not denying the evidence but how has it been gotten away with for years > > then? Prevention of writeback isn't the answer without figuring out how > > direct reclaimers can queue pages for IO and in the case of lumpy reclaim > > doing sync IO, then waiting on those pages. > > So, I've been reading along, nodding my head to Dave's side of things > because seeks are evil and direct reclaim makes seeks. I'd really loev > for direct reclaim to somehow trigger writepages on large chunks instead > of doing page by page spatters of IO to the drive. > > But, somewhere along the line I overlooked the part of Dave's stack trace > that said: > > 43) 1568 912 do_select+0x3d6/0x700 > > Huh, 912 bytes...for select, really? From poll.h: > > /* ~832 bytes of stack space used max in sys_select/sys_poll before allocating > additional memory. */ > #define MAX_STACK_ALLOC 832 > #define FRONTEND_STACK_ALLOC 256 > #define SELECT_STACK_ALLOC FRONTEND_STACK_ALLOC > #define POLL_STACK_ALLOC FRONTEND_STACK_ALLOC > #define WQUEUES_STACK_ALLOC (MAX_STACK_ALLOC - FRONTEND_STACK_ALLOC) > #define N_INLINE_POLL_ENTRIES (WQUEUES_STACK_ALLOC / sizeof(struct poll_table_entry)) > > So, select is intentionally trying to use that much stack. It should be using > GFP_NOFS if it really wants to suck down that much stack...if only the > kernel had some sort of way to dynamically allocate ram, it could try > that too. Yeah, Of cource much. I would propse to revert 70674f95c0. But I doubt GFP_NOFS solve our issue. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>