Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:01 -0700
Daniel Phillips <phillips@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Daniel Phillips <phillips@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>What happened to the case where we just fill memory full of dirty file
> >>pages backed by a remote disk?
> > 
> > Processes which are dirtying those pages throttle at
> > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio% of memory dirty.  So it is not possible to "fill"
> > memory with dirty pages.  If the amount of physical memory which is dirty
> > exceeds 40%: bug.
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> So we make 400 MB of a 1 GB system

by default - it's runtime configurable.

> unavailable for write caching just to
> get around the network receive starvation issue?

No, it's mainly to avoid latency: to prevent tasks which want to allocate
pages from getting stuck behind writeback.

> What happens if some in kernel user grabs 68% of kernel memory to do some
> very important thing, does this starvation avoidance scheme still work?

Well something has to give way.  The process might get swapped out a bit,
or it might stall in the page allocator because of all the dirty memory.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/