Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:33:07 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: refill_inactive() |
| |
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > Hmmm, doesn't GFP_BUFFER simply imply that we cannot > > allocate new buffer heads to do IO with?? > > No. > > New buffer heads would be ok - recursion is fine in theory, as long as it > is bounded, and we might bound it some other way (I don't think we > _should_ do recursion here due to the stack limit, but at least it's not > a fundamental problem). > > The fundamental problem is that GFP_BUFFER allocations are often done with > some critical filesystem lock held. Which means that we cannot call down > to the filesystem to free up memory. > > The name is a misnomer, partly due to historical reasons (the buffer cache > used to be fragile, and if you free'd buffer cache pages while you were > trying to allocate new ones you could cause BadThings(tm) to happen), but > partly just because the only _user_ of it is the buffer cache. > > In theory, filesystems could use it for any other allocations that they > do, but in practice they don't, and the only allocations they do in > critical regions is the buffer allocation. And as this thread has > discussed, even that is really more of a bug than a feature.
Good thing to have this documented ;)
Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |