On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:34:18AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 06/15/2010 07:45 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 05:55:51PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>> On 06/14/2010 07:17 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>>>> index 4856a2a..574e816 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>>>> @@ -372,6 +372,12 @@ int write_reclaim_page(struct page *page, struct address_space *mapping,
>>>> return PAGE_SUCCESS;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +/* kswapd and memcg can writeback as they are unlikely to overflow stack */
>>>> +static inline bool reclaim_can_writeback(struct scan_control *sc)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return current_is_kswapd() || sc->mem_cgroup != NULL;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I'm not entirely convinced on this bit, but am willing to
>>> be convinced by the data.
>>>
>>
>> Which bit?
>>
>> You're not convinced that kswapd should be allowed to write back?
>> You're not convinced that memcg should be allowed to write back?
>> You're not convinced that direct reclaim writing back pages can overflow
>> the stack?
>
> If direct reclaim can overflow the stack, so can direct
> memcg reclaim. That means this patch does not solve the
> stack overflow, while admitting that we do need the
> ability to get specific pages flushed to disk from the
> pageout code.
>
What path is taken with memcg != NULL that could overflow the stack? I
couldn't spot one but mm/memcontrol.c is a bit tangled so finding all
its use cases is tricky. The critical path I had in mind though was
direct reclaim and for that path, memcg == NULL or did I miss something?
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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>