[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Do not call ->writepage[s] from direct reclaim and use a_ops->writepages() where possible
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 05:08:11AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 10:02:19AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > seeky patterns. The second is that direct reclaim calling the filesystem
> > splices two potentially deep call paths together and potentially overflows
> > the stack on complex storage or filesystems. This series is an early draft
> > at tackling both of these problems and is in three stages.
> Btw, one more thing came up when I discussed the issue again with Dave
> recently:
> - we also need to care about ->releasepage. At least for XFS it
> can end up in the same deep allocator chain as ->writepage because
> it does all the extent state conversions, even if it doesn't
> start I/O.


> I haven't managed yet to decode the ext4/btrfs codepaths
> for ->releasepage yet to figure out how they release a page that
> covers a delayed allocated or unwritten range.

If ext4/btrfs are also very deep call-chains and this series is going more
or less the right direction, then avoiding calling ->releasepage from direct
reclaim is one, somewhat unfortunate, option. The second is to avoid it on
a per-filesystem basis for direct reclaim using PF_MEMALLOC to detect
reclaimers and PF_KSWAPD to tell the difference between direct
reclaimers and kswapd.

Either way, these pages could be treated similar to dirty pages on the
dirty_pages list.

Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-08 11:31    [W:0.157 / U:2.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site