From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756413Ab0JVMBZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:01:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6809 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754481Ab0JVMBY (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:01:24 -0400 Message-ID: <4CC17CF1.4000109@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:00:49 -0400 From: Rik van Riel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100806 Fedora/3.1.2-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wu Fengguang CC: Andrew Morton , Neil Brown , KOSAKI Motohiro , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "Li, Shaohua" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Avoid possible deadlock caused by too_many_isolated() References: <20101022045509.GA16804@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20101022045509.GA16804@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/22/2010 12:55 AM, Wu Fengguang wrote: > Now !GFP_IOFS reclaims won't be waiting for GFP_IOFS reclaims to > progress. They will be blocked only when there are too many concurrent > !GFP_IOFS reclaims, however that's very unlikely because the IO-less > direct reclaims is able to progress much more faster, and they won't > deadlock each other. The threshold is raised high enough for them, so > that there can be sufficient parallel progress of !GFP_IOFS reclaims. > > CC: Torsten Kaiser > CC: Minchan Kim > Tested-by: NeilBrown > Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang Acked-by: Rik van Riel -- All rights reversed