Re: SOCK_MEMALLOC vs loopback

[Mike Christie <mchristi@redhat.com>]

On 03/04/2015 10:03 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 03/04/2015 02:04 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 09:38:48PM +0300, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>>> >> Hello,
>>> >>
>>> >> A short while ago Mike added a patch to libceph to set SOCK_MEMALLOC on
>>> >> libceph sockets and PF_MEMALLOC around send/receive paths (commit
>>> >> 89baaa570ab0, "libceph: use memalloc flags for net IO").  rbd is much
>>> >> like nbd and is succeptible to all the same memory allocation
>>> >> deadlocks, so it seemed like a step in the right direction.
>>> >>
>> > 
>> > The contract for SOCK_MEMALLOC is that it would only be used for temporary
>> > allocations that were necessary for the system to make forward progress. In
>> > the case of swap-over-NFS, it would only be used for transmitting
>> > buffers that were necessary to write data to swap when there were no
> Are upper layers like NFS/iSCSI/NBD/RBD supposed to know or track when
> there are no other options (for example if a GFP_ATOMIC allocation
> fails, then set the flags and retry the operation), or are they supposed
> to be able to set the flags, send IO and let the network layer handle it?
> 

Oh yeah, maybe I misunderstood you. Were you just saying we should not
be using it for the configuration we are hitting the problem on?