From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S938129AbXHPCuH (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:50:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760089AbXHPCtx (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:49:53 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:43394 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1765966AbXHPCtw (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:49:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 04:49:49 +0200 From: Nick Piggin To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dkegel@google.com, Peter Zijlstra , David Miller Subject: Re: [RFC 0/9] Reclaim during GFP_ATOMIC allocs Message-ID: <20070816024949.GA16372@wotan.suse.de> References: <20070814153021.446917377@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070814153021.446917377@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 08:30:21AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > This is the extended version of the reclaim patchset. It enables reclaim from > clean file backed pages during GFP_ATOMIC allocs. A bit invasive since > may locks must now be taken with saving flags. But it works. > > Tested by repeatedly allocating 12MB of memory from the timer interrupt. > > -- Just to clarify... I can see how recursive reclaim can prevent memory getting eaten up by reclaim (which thus causes allocations from interrupt handlers to fail)... But this patchset I don't see will do anything to prevent reclaim deadlocks, right? (because if there is reclaimable memory at hand, then kswapd should eventually reclaim it).