On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:09:29 -0400
Steve Dickson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > It's not 100% clear what the gfp_t _means_ in the try_to_release_page()
> > context. Callees will rarely want to allocate memory (true?). So it
> > conveys two concepts:
> >
> > a) can sleep. (__GFP_WAIT). That's fairly straightforward
> >
> > b) can take fs locks (__GFP_FS). This is less clear. By passing down
> > __GFP_FS we're telling the callee that it's OK to take i_mutex, even
> > lock_page(). That sounds pretty unsafe in this context, particularly
> > the latter, as we're already holding a page lock.
> >
> > So perhaps the safer and more appropriate solution here is to pass in a
> > bare __GFP_WAIT.
> I agree... __GFP_WAIT does seem to be a bit more straightforward...
> either way is find.. as long as it cause NFS to flush its pages...
Except NFS looks at __GFP_FS, so __GFP_WAIT won't help.
Oh well. Passing __GFP_FS in here sort-of implies that it's OK to run
lock_page(), but if a ->releasepage() impementation tries to lock the page
it's passed then it needs its head read.
I made it GFP_KERNEL.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
