On 22/11/06, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 21 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I don't think we use any irq-disable locking in the VM itself, but I could
> imagine some nasty situation with the block device layer getting into a
> deadlock with interrupts disabled when it runs out of queue entries and
> cannot allocate more memory..
Not likely. Request allocation is done with GFP_NOIO and backed by a
memory pool, so as long the vm doesn't go totally nuts because
__GFP_WAIT is set, we should be safe there. If it did go crazy, I
suspect a sysrq-t would still work.
If bouncing is involved for swap, we do have a potential deadlock issue
that isn't fixed yet. I just whipped up this completely untested patch,
it should shed some light on that issue.
Thanks Jens, I'll apply that later tonight and force a few lockups and
see if I get any extra details with that patch.
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
