On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 12:35:33 +0400 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 03:08 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> +
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * We will try to shrink kernel memory present in caches. We
> >> > + * are sure that we can wait, so we will. The duration of our
> >> > + * wait is determined by congestion, the same way as vmscan.c
> >> > + *
> >> > + * If we are in FS context, though, then although we can wait,
> >> > + * we cannot call the shrinkers. Most fs shrinkers (which
> >> > + * comprises most of our kmem data) will not run without
> >> > + * __GFP_FS since they can deadlock. The solution is to
> >> > + * synchronously run that in a different context.
> > But this is pointless. Calling a function via a different thread and
> > then waiting for it to complete is equivalent to calling it directly.
> >
> Not in this case. We are in wait-capable context (we check for this
> right before we reach this), but we are not in fs capable context.
>
> So the reason we do this - which I tried to cover in the changelog, is
> to escape from the GFP_FS limitation that our call chain has, not the
> wait limitation.
But that's equivalent to calling the code directly. Look:
some_fs_function()
{
lock(some-fs-lock);
...
}
some_other_fs_function()
{
lock(some-fs-lock);
alloc_pages(GFP_NOFS);
->...
->schedule_work(some_fs_function);
flush_scheduled_work();
that flush_scheduled_work() won't complete until some_fs_function() has
completed. But some_fs_function() won't complete, because we're
holding some-fs-lock.
--
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>