[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701172117090.9112@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:21:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
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, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 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.
Ok I tried it but this wont work unless I also pass the page struct pointer to
__mark_inode_dirty() since the dirty_node pointer could be freed
when the inode_lock is droppped. So I cannot dereference the
dirty_nodes pointer outside of __mark_inode_dirty.
If I expand __mark_inode_dirty then all variations of mark_inode_dirty()
need to be changed and we need to pass a page struct everywhere. This
result in extensive changes.
I think I need to stick with the tree_lock. This also makes more sense
since we modify dirty information in the address_space structure and the
radix tree is already protected by that lock.
-
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