From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AAA16B0247 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:55:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C17945A.5070500@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:55:22 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Do not call ->writepage[s] from direct reclaim and use a_ops->writepages() where possible References: <1275987745-21708-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20100615140011.GD28052@random.random> <20100615145134.GM26788@csn.ul.ie> In-Reply-To: <20100615145134.GM26788@csn.ul.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Dave Chinner , Chris Mason , Nick Piggin List-ID: On 06/15/2010 10:51 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:00:11PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: >> Hi Mel, >> >> I know lots of people doesn't like direct reclaim, > > It's not direct reclaim that is the problem per-se, it's direct reclaim > calling writepage and splicing two potentially deep call chains > together. I have talked to Mel on IRC, and the above means: "calling alloc_pages from an already deep stack frame, and then going into direct reclaim" That explanation would have been helpful in email :) -- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org