[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070726020704.GC20727@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:07:04 +0200
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
magnade@...il.com, davej@...emonkey.org.uk
Subject: Re: [patch] agp: don't lock pages
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:44:22AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> >Yeah I had a bit of a look around, and it seems OK (but would
> >appreciate an ack from someone who knows the code).
> >
> >These pages will never get seen by page reclaim, so we're OK
> >there. There is a get_page before the SetPageLocked and a put_page
> >right before the unlock_page, so refcounting should not be broken
> >if it wasn't already: note that the lock_page doesn't pin a
> >reference on a page in general -- we can use it as such for pagecache
> >(although it isn't very clean), because the lock pins the page in
> >pagecache and the pagecache holds a ref.
> >
> >Anyway, if Dave or David can take a look, that would be appreciated.
> >We'll need this for 2.6.23.
>
> I talked with Ben earlier and I can't see anything inherently wrong
> with removing the lock_page, I assume it was put there to stop things
> getting swapped but if the get/put does that then I'd be happy to
> remove it.
Well it is prevented from being swapped out because it never gets
put on swapout lists, but the get/put certainly doesn't hurt :)
> I'm just a bit confused how this didn't get picked up in -mm at all.
Beats me. It was in there for nearly 5 months. Mustn't have been
tested or reported.
-
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