From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285336B003D for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:24:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 21:23:56 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm fix page writeback accounting to fix oom condition under heavy I/O In-Reply-To: <20090210033652.GA28435@Krystal> Message-ID: References: <20090120122855.GF30821@kernel.dk> <20090120232748.GA10605@Krystal> <20090123220009.34DF.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090210033652.GA28435@Krystal> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Jens Axboe , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , thomas.pi@arcor.dea, Yuriy Lalym , ltt-dev@lists.casi.polymtl.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > So this patch fixes this behavior by only decrementing the page accounting > _after_ the block I/O writepage has been done. This makes no sense, really. Or rather, I don't mind the notion of updating the counters only after IO per se, and _that_ part of it probably makes sense. But why is it that you only then fix up two of the call-sites. There's a lot more call-sites than that for this function. So if this really makes a big difference, that's an interesting starting point for discussion, but I don't see how this particular patch could possibly be the right thing to do. Linus -- 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