On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:04:24AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 06/15/2010 09:59 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:34:18AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>> On 06/15/2010 07:45 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +/* 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;
>>>>>> +}
>
>>> 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?
>
> mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim -> try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages
>
But in turn, where is mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim called from direct
reclaim? It appears to be only called from the fault path or as a result
of the memcg changing size.
--
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>