Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1255852 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-26 12:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-10-26 12:50 +0100 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Newbie's question: memory allocation when reclaiming memory Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2015-10-26 12:50 +0100
| From | Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 12:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Newbie's question: memory allocation when reclaiming memory |
| Message-ID | <qnOrL-7Hj-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
May I ask a newbie question? Say, there is some amount of memory pages which can be reclaimed if they are flushed to storage. And lower layer might issue memory allocation request in a way which won't cause reclaim deadlock (e.g. using GFP_NOFS or GFP_NOIO) when flushing to storage, isn't it? What I'm worrying is a dependency that __GFP_FS allocation requests think that there are reclaimable pages and therefore there is no need to call out_of_memory(); and GFP_NOFS allocation requests which the __GFP_FS allocation requests depend on (in order to flush to storage) is waiting for GFP_NOIO allocation requests; and the GFP_NOIO allocation requests which the GFP_NOFS allocation requests depend on (in order to flush to storage) are waiting for memory pages to be reclaimed without calling out_of_memory(); because gfp_to_alloc_flags() does not favor GFP_NOIO over GFP_NOFS nor GFP_NOFS over __GFP_FS which will throttle all allocations at the same watermark level. How do we guarantee that GFP_NOFS/GFP_NOIO allocations make forward progress? What mechanism guarantees that memory pages which __GFP_FS allocation requests are waiting for are reclaimed? I assume that there is some mechanism; otherwise we can hit silent livelock, can't we? -- 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/
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web