LWN.net Logo

Fixing writeback from direct reclaim

Fixing writeback from direct reclaim

Posted Jul 28, 2010 19:01 UTC (Wed) by i3839 (guest, #31386)
In reply to: Fixing writeback from direct reclaim by giraffedata
Parent article: Fixing writeback from direct reclaim

Peter Zijlstra was busy with a VM deadlock prevention patch a while ago, no idea if that made it or if that PF_MEMALLOC flag came from there.

Anyway, those cases come from cleaning dirty pages, and the deadlock comes into view when that is triggered by the page stealer, but those paths try to allocate memory and trigger the page stealer again. I wouldn't really say the page stealer is the one needing memory, but rather that to steal dirty pages you sometimes need memory, especially with network file systems. The main problem there being that they need to receive packets to have forward progress in the dirty data writeout (and you don't know before receiving whether it's a critical packet or not). I think they added a memory pool to mostly fix this case.

Most page faults don't require IO, just memory mapping updates. If a process allocates memory it gets virtual memory, only when it actually uses it real memory is allocated for it. In that case a page fault occurs and a page needs to be allocated and mapped. Same for copy-on-write handling. Looking at the code it seems that the kernel just has to enable interrupts and can continue handling the page fault in process context without doing much special.


(Log in to post comments)

Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds