Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Do not call ->writepage[s] from direct reclaimand use a_ops->writepages() where possible

From: Mel Gorman
Date: Fri Jun 11 2010 - 14:15:56 EST

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:29:12PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 10:28:14AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > - we also need to care about ->releasepage. At least for XFS it
> > > can end up in the same deep allocator chain as ->writepage because
> > > it does all the extent state conversions, even if it doesn't
> > > start I/O.
> >
> > Dang.
> >
> > > I haven't managed yet to decode the ext4/btrfs codepaths
> > > for ->releasepage yet to figure out how they release a page that
> > > covers a delayed allocated or unwritten range.
> > >
> >
> > If ext4/btrfs are also very deep call-chains and this series is going more
> > or less the right direction, then avoiding calling ->releasepage from direct
> > reclaim is one, somewhat unfortunate, option. The second is to avoid it on
> > a per-filesystem basis for direct reclaim using PF_MEMALLOC to detect
> > reclaimers and PF_KSWAPD to tell the difference between direct
> > reclaimers and kswapd.
> I went throught this a bit more and I can't actually hit that code in
> XFS ->releasepage anymore. I've also audited the caller and can't see
> how we could theoretically hit it anymore. Do the VM gurus know a case
> where we would call ->releasepage on a page that's actually dirty and
> hasn't been through block_invalidatepage before?

Not a clue I'm afraid as I haven't dealt much with the interactions
between VM and FS in the past. Nick?

Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at