lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Linux 2.4.5-ac15
Date
On Thursday 21 June 2001 07:44, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > Ok, I suspect that GFP_BUFFER allocations are fucking up here (they
> > > can't block on IO, so they loop insanely).
> >
> > Why doesn't the VM hang the syncing of queued IO on these guys via
> > wait_event or such instead of trying to just let the allocation fail?
>
> Actually the VM should limit the amount of data being queued for _all_
> kind of allocations.
>
> The problem is the lack of a mechanism which allows us to account the
> approximated amount of queued IO by the VM. (except for swap pages)

Coincidence - that's what I started working on two days ago, and I'm moving
into the second generation design today. Look at 'queued_sectors'. I found
pretty quickly it's not enough, today I'm adding 'submitted_sectors' to the
soup. This will allow me to distinguish between traffic generated by my own
thread and other traffic.

> > Does failing the allocation in fact accomplish more than what I'm
> > (uhoh:) assuming?
>
> No.
>
> It sucks really badly.

Amen.

--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.040 / U:0.984 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site