[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061006154058.4190075f.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 15:40:58 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc: Steve Dickson <SteveD@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VM: Fix the gfp_mask in invalidate_complete_page2
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:19:27 -0400
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 18:16 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > Yeah using mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) sounds like a better option.
>
> Revised patch is attached...
Well, it wasn't attached, but I can simulate it.
invalidate_complete_page() wants to be called from inside spinlocks by
drop_pagecache(), so if we wanted to pull the same trick there we'd need to
pass a new flag into invalidate_inode_pages().
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.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists