Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 21 May 2008 10:15:32 +0400 | | From | Evgeniy Polyakov <> | | Subject | Re: [patch 10/21] buffer heads: Support slab defrag |
| |
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 04:28:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) wrote: > It's more than efficiency. There are lots and lots of things we cannot > do in direct-reclaim context. > > a) Can't lock pages (well we kinda sorta could, but generally code > will just trylock) > > b) Cannot rely on the inode or the address_space being present in > memory after we have unlocked the page. > > c) Cannot run iput(). Or at least, we couldn't five or six years > ago. afaik nobody has investigated whether the situation is now > better or worse. > > d) lots of deadlock scenarios - need to test __GFP_FS basically everywhere > in which you share code with normal writeback paths. > > Plus e), f), g) and h). Direct-reclaim is a hostile environment. > Things like b) are a real killer - nasty, subtle, rare, > memory-pressure-dependent crashes.
Which basically means we can not do direct writeback at reclaim time?..
-- Evgeniy Polyakov
|  |