lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BUG] loop.c oopses
On Tue, Jul 16 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's maybe wrong - if there are a decent number of pages
> > > > under writeback then we should be able to just wait it out.
> > > > But it gets tricky with the loop driver...
> > >
> > > I wonder if it is possible to exhaust the mempool with
> > > the loop driver requests before getting around to the
> > > requests to the underlying block device(s)...
> >
> > Given the finite size of the pool and the possibly infinite stacking
> > level, yes that is possible. You may just run out of loop minors before
> > this happens [1]. Also note that you need more than a simple remapping,
> > crypto setup for instance.
>
> Or maybe SMP, with multiple CPUs submitting requests at the
> same time ?

It would still require a totally pathetic loop setup. More than 2 or 3
stacked loop devices that are not using remapping would crawl
performance wise. Now make that eg 32 "indirections" (allocations and
copies on _each_ i/o), and I think you'll find that the system would be
impossible to use long before this theoretical dead lock would be hit.

--
Jens Axboe

-
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 13:22    [W:0.122 / U:2.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site