Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
- From: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:45:12 +0000
On Gwe, 2006-01-06 at 15:00 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> In the case of call_rcu_bh(), you can be sure that the caller cannot afford
> 'sleeping memory allocations'. Better drop a frame than block the stack, no ?
atomic allocations can't sleep and will fail which is fine. If memory
allocation pressure exists for sleeping allocations because of a large
rcu backlog we want to be sure that the rcu backlog from the networking
stack or other sources does not cause us to OOM kill or take incorrect
action.
So if for example we want to grow a process stack and the memory is
there just stuck in the RCU lists pending recovery we want to let the
RCU recovery happen before making drastic decisions.
-
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/
- References:
- [PATCH 4/6] sysctl: dont overflow the user-supplied buffer with 0
- From: Chris Wright
- Re: [PATCH 4/6] sysctl: dont overflow the user-supplied buffer with 0
- From: Linus Torvalds
- [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
- From: Eric Dumazet
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
- From: Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
- From: Eric Dumazet
- [PATCH 4/6] sysctl: dont overflow the user-supplied buffer with 0
- Prev by Date: RE: RAID controller safety
- Next by Date: Re: [2.6 patch] schedule obsolete OSS drivers for removal
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH, RFC] RCU : OOM avoidance and lower latency
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|