On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 01:26:12 +0200
Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This is a somewhat general problem: a userspace process is in the IO path.
> > Userspace block drivers, for example - pretty much anything which involves
> > kernel->userspace upcalls for storage applications.
> >
> > I solved it once in the past by marking the userspace process as
> > PF_MEMALLOC and I beleive that others have implemented the same hack.
> >
> > I suspect that what we need is a general solution, and that the solution
> > will involve explicitly telling the kernel that this process is one which
> > actually cleans memory and needs special treatment.
> >
> > Because I bet there will be other corner-cases where such a process needs
> > kernel help, and there might be optimisation opportunities as well.
> >
> > Problem is, any such mark-me-as-special syscall would need to be
> > privileged, and FUSE servers presently don't require special perms (do
> > they?)
>
> No, and that's a rather important feature, that I'd rather not give
> up.
Can fuse do it? Perhaps the fs can diddle the server's task_struct at
registration time?
> But with the dirty limiting, the memory cleaning really shouldn't
> be a problem, as there is plenty of memory _not_ used for dirty file
> data, that the filesystem can use during the writeback.
I don't think I understand that. Sure, it _shouldn't_ be a problem. But it
_is_. That's what we're trying to fix, isn't it?
> So the only thing the kernel should be careful about, is not to block
> on an allocation if not strictly necessary.
>
> Actually a trivial fix for this problem could be to just tweak the
> thresholds, so to make the above scenario impossible. Although I'm
> still not convinced, this patch is perfect, because the dirty
> threshold can actually change in time...
>
> Index: linux/mm/page-writeback.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2007-10-05 00:31:01.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux/mm/page-writeback.c 2007-10-05 00:50:11.000000000 +0200
> @@ -515,6 +515,12 @@ void throttle_vm_writeout(gfp_t gfp_mask
> for ( ; ; ) {
> get_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh, NULL, NULL);
>
> + /*
> + * Make sure the theshold is over the hard limit of
> + * dirty_thresh + ratelimit_pages * nr_cpus
> + */
> + dirty_thresh += ratelimit_pages * num_online_cpus();
> +
> /*
> * Boost the allowable dirty threshold a bit for page
> * allocators so they don't get DoS'ed by heavy writers
I can probably kind of guess what you're trying to do here. But if
ratelimit_pages * num_online_cpus() exceeds the size of the offending zone
then things might go bad.
-
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]
