Re: [RFC 0/7] Postphone reclaim laundry to write at high water marks

[Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 03:32:25PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > 1. Like in the earlier patchset allow reentry to reclaim under 
> >    PF_MEMALLOC if we are out of all memory.
> 
> Can you simply tweak on the may_writepage flag only to achieve the
> second pass? We're talking here about a totally non-performance case,
> almost impossible to hit in practice unless you do real weird things,
> and certainly very unlikely to happen. So I'm unsure what's all that
> complexity just to make a regular pass on the lru looking for clean
> pages, something may_writepage=0 already does.
> 

Yes that is what the PF_MEMALLOC patch that I posted before does. This 
discussion gets me more and more to thinking that the recursive reclaim on 
PF_MEMALLOC is all that is needed for emergency situations (to get out of 
the "tight spot").

See
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118710219116624&w=2

> If the PF_MEMALLOC is found empty, I agree entering reclaim a second
> time with may_writepage=0 sounds theoretically a good idea (in
> practice it should never be necessary). printk must also be printed to
> warn the user he was risking to deadlock for real and he has to
> increase the min_free_kbytes.

Ok. I can add a printk to that one.

> That sounds a bit risky, there are latency considerations here to
> make, GFP_ATOMIC will run with irq locally disabled and it may hang
> for indefinite amount of time (O(N)). So irq latency may break and it
> may be better to lose a packet once in a while than to hang
> interrupts. If you want to do this you'd probably need to add a new
> GFP_ATOMIC_RECLAIM or similar.

Well we could do the same as for PF_MEMALLOC: print a warning and then 
reclaim nevertheless if we cannot fail (We already have a GFP_NOFAIL 
flag). It is better to generate a latency than the system failing 
altogether. However the GFP_ATOMIC reclaim patchset is a 
bit more invasive (http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=118710584014150&w=2). 
Maybe this is too much churn for the rare need of such a reclaim.
 

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>