> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:36:41AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > > Ok, that's reasonable as I'm still working on that patch. For example, the
> > > patch disabled anonymous page writeback which is unnecessary as the stack
> > > usage for anon writeback is less than file writeback.
> >
> > How do we examine swap-on-file?
> >
>
> Anything in particular wrong with the following?
>
> /*
> * For now, only kswapd can writeback filesystem pages as otherwise
> * there is a stack overflow risk
> */
> static inline bool reclaim_can_writeback(struct scan_control *sc,
> struct page *page)
> {
> return !page_is_file_cache(page) || current_is_kswapd();
> }
>
> Even if it is a swapfile, I didn't spot a case where the filesystems
> writepage would be called. Did I miss something?
Hmm...
Now, I doubt I don't understand your mention. Do you mean you intend to swtich task
stack when every writepage? It seems a bit costly. but otherwise write-page for anon
makes filesystem IO and stack-overflow.
Can you please elaborate your plan?
--
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>