From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: ext4 deep stack with mark_page_dirty reclaim
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:46:45 -0400
Message-ID: <20110314224645.GA20348@infradead.org>
References: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1103141156190.3220@sister.anvils>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Return-path: <linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:54524 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751715Ab1CNWqr (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:46:47 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1103141156190.3220@sister.anvils>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org>

Direct reclaim (in the cgroup variant) at it's work.  We had a couple of
flamewars on this before, but this trivial example with reclaim from
the most simple case (swap space) shows that we really should never
reclaim from memory allocation callers for stack usage reasons.