Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 01-09-17 21:40:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > We are doing the first allocation attempt before calling
> > current_gfp_context(). But since slab shrinker functions might depend on
> > __GFP_FS and/or __GFP_IO masking, calling slab shrinker functions from
> > node_reclaim() from get_page_from_freelist() without calling
> > current_gfp_context() has possibility of deadlock. Therefore, make sure
> > that the first memory allocation attempt does not call slab shrinker
> > functions.
>
> But we do filter gfp_mask at __node_reclaim layer. Not really ideal from
> the readability point of view and maybe it could be cleaned up there
> shouldn't be any bug AFAICS. On the other hand we can save few cycles on
> the hot path that way and there are people who care about every cycle
> there and node reclaim is absolutely the last thing they care about.
Ah, indeed. We later do
struct scan_control sc = {
.gfp_mask = current_gfp_context(gfp_mask),
}
in __node_reclaim(). OK, there will be no problem.
--
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>
