lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Bounce buffer deadlock
Date
From
> 
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Steve Lord wrote:
> >
> > OK, sounds reasonable, time to go download and merge again I guess!
>
> For 2.4.7 or so, I'll make a backwards-compatibility define (ie make
> GFP_BUFFER be the same as the new GFP_NOIO, which is the historical
> behaviour and the anally safe value, if not very efficient), but I'm
> planning on releasing 2.4.6 without it, to try to flush out people who are
> able to take advantage of the new extended semantics out of the
> woodworks..
>
> Linus

Consider XFS flushed out (once I merge). This, for us, is the tricky part:


torvalds@transmeta.com said:
>> That allows us to do the best we can - still flushing out dirty
>> buffers when that's ok (like when a filesystem wants more memory), and
>> giving the allocator better control over exactly _what_ he objects to.

XFS introduces the concept of the low level flush of a buffer not always
being really a low level flush, since a delayed allocate buffer can end
up reentering the filesystem in order to create the true on disk allocation.
This in turn can cause a transaction and more memory allocations. The really
nasty case we were using GFP_BUFFER for is a memory allocation which is from
within a transaction, we cannot afford to have another transaction start out
of the bottom of memory allocation as it may require resources locked by
the transaction which is allocating memory.

Steve



-
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:0.047 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site