Hello, On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:48:42PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > It's implementable for sure. I'm just not sure how it'd help > > > anything. It's not a relevant information on anything. > > > > Except to enable us to get closer to the "rescuer must make forwards > > progress" guarantee. In this context, the rescuer is the only > > context we should allow to dip into memory reserves. I'm happy if we > > have to explicitly check for that and set PF_MEMALLOC ourselves > > (we do that for XFS kernel threads involved in memory reclaim), > > but it's not something we should set automatically on every > > IO completion work item we run.... > > Ah, okay, that does make sense to me. Yeah, providing that test > shouldn't be difficult at all. Lemme cook up a patch. Turns out we already have this. Writeback path already has a special case handling for the rescuer. You can just use current_is_workqueue_rescuer(). The function can be called safely from any task context. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
