[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070117172534.fbe92a88.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:25:34 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: menage@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, linux-mm@...ck.org, ak@...e.de,
pj@....com, dgc@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Cpuset aware writeback
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:10:25 -0800 (PST) Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > The inode lock is not taken when the page is dirtied.
> >
> > The inode_lock is taken when the address_space's first page is dirtied. It is
> > also taken when the address_space's last dirty page is cleaned. So the place
> > where the inode is added to and removed from sb->s_dirty is, I think, exactly
> > the place where we want to attach and detach address_space.dirty_page_nodemask.
>
> The problem there is that we do a GFP_ATOMIC allocation (no allocation
> context) that may fail when the first page is dirtied. We must therefore
> be able to subsequently allocate the nodemask_t in set_page_dirty().
> Otherwise the first failure will mean that there will never be a dirty
> map for the inode/mapping.
True. But it's pretty simple to change __mark_inode_dirty() to fix this.
-
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