[ Crossed emails ]
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:30:07AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>
>> And now we have too deep a stack due to unplugging from io_schedule()...
>
> So, if we make io_schedule() push the plug list off to the kblockd
> like is done for schedule()....
We might have a few different cases.
The cases where we *do* care about latency is when we are waiting for
the IO ourselves (ie in wait_on_page() and friends), and those end up
using io_schedule() too.
So in *that* case we definitely have a latency argument for doing it
directly, and we shouldn't kick it off to kblockd. That's very much a
"get this started as soon as humanly possible".
But the "wait_iff_congested()" code that also uses io_schedule()
should push it out to kblockd, methinks.
>> This stack overflow shows us that just the memory reclaim + IO
>> layers are sufficient to cause a stack overflow,
>
> .... we solve this problem directly by being able to remove the IO
> stack usage from the direct reclaim swap path.
>
> IOWs, we don't need to turn swap off at all in direct reclaim
> because all the swap IO can be captured in a plug list and
> dispatched via kblockd. This could be done either by io_schedule()
> or a new blk_flush_plug_list() wrapper that pushes the work to
> kblockd...
That would work. That said, I personally would not mind to see that
"swap is special" go away, if possible. Because it can be behind a
filesystem too. Christ, even NFS (and people used to fight that tooth
and nail!) is back as a swap target..
Linus
--
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>