From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 In-reply-to: (message from Miklos Szeredi on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:25:21 +0100) Subject: Re: dirty balancing deadlock References: <20070218125307.4103c04a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070218145929.547c21c7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070218155916.0d3c73a9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:45:06 +0100 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > > > > If so, writes to B will decrease the dirty memory threshold. > > > > > > Yes, but not by enough. Say A dirties a 1100 pages, limit is 1000. > > > Some pages queued for writeback (doesn't matter how much). B writes > > > back 1, 1099 dirty remain in A, zero in B. balance_dirty_pages() for > > > B doesn't know that there's nothing more to write back for B, it's > > > just waiting there for those 1099, which'll never get written. > > > > hm, OK, arguable. I guess something like this.. > > Doesn't help the fuse case, but does seem to help the loopback mount > one. No sorry, it doesn't even help the loopback deadlock. It sometimes takes quite a while to trigger... Miklos -- 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