From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 20:43:18 -0400 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [-mm][PATCH 4/5] core of reclaim throttle Message-ID: <20080505204318.3f95c83c@bree.surriel.com> In-Reply-To: <2f11576a0805051523h730fce0foa51f1fdbf9c46cbe@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080504201343.8F52.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080504215819.8F5E.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080504221043.8F64.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080505175142.7de3f27b@cuia.bos.redhat.com> <2f11576a0805051523h730fce0foa51f1fdbf9c46cbe@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Tue, 6 May 2008 07:23:18 +0900 "KOSAKI Motohiro" wrote: > hmmm, AFAIK, > on current kernel, sometimes __GFP_IO task wait for non __GFP_IO task > by lock_page(). > Is this wrong? This is fine. The problem is adding a code path that causes non __GFP_IO tasks to wait on __GFP_IO tasks. Then you can have a deadlock. > therefore my patch care only recursive reclaim situation. > I don't object to your opinion. but I hope understand exactly your opinion. I believe not all non __GFP_IO or non __GFP_FS calls are recursive reclaim, but there are some other code paths too. For example from fs/buffer.c -- All rights reversed. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org