On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:53:01 +0100
Mel Gorman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does it really matter as they routinely do not take zone->lru_lock
> either? pages_min, pages_low and pages_high are currently examined on a
> regular basis by zone_watermark_ok() without any locks held in the page
> allocator and page reclaim path. Glancing through this, it would appear
> that the code in question has the same level of locking protection with
> zone->lru_lock or zone->lock.
>
At the first look, I thought this should be lock-less. But I noticed that
memory hotplug(See add_memory()) calls setup_per_zone_pages_min().
Then, logically, there are 2 interfaces which calls setup_per_zone_pages_min();
So, we need some kind of lock.
And setup_zone_migrate_reserve() is also called in this function.
This does more than change value. So I thought zone->lock is good here.
> Is memory hotadd specifically taking the lru_lock somewhere? I can only
> think of the seqlock at the moment.
>
memory hotplug doesn't take lru_lock.
Thanks,
-Kame
-
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]
