Re: Feedback on preemptible kernel patch

Daniel Phillips
2001-09-16T01:47:53Z

On September 16, 2001 03:28 am, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On September 15, 2001 09:18 pm, Robert Love wrote:
> > On Sun, 2001-09-09 at 23:24, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > This may not be your fault. It's a GFP_NOFS recursive allocation - this
> > > comes either from grow_buffers or ReiserFS, probably the former. In
> > > either case, it means we ran completely out of free pages, even though
> > > the caller is willing to wait. Hmm. It smells like a loophole in vm
> > > scanning.

Oh, wait, I was working off 2.4.9 source, and your user had the problem with
2.4.9-pre4, where we have GFP_NOHIGHIO. So - reinterpreting the bits - all
those failures are bounce buffer allocations. People are also getting these
failures without your patch, so relax ;-)

Maybe allowing preemption inside page_launder makes it happen more often.

--
Daniel