[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:25:24 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] vmscan: Synchrounous lumpy reclaim use
lock_page() instead trylock_page()
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 11:15:47AM +0800, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 12:04:48 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 11:47:28 +0100
> > Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> >
> > > From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> > >
> > > With synchrounous lumpy reclaim, there is no reason to give up to reclaim
> > > pages even if page is locked. This patch uses lock_page() instead of
> > > trylock_page() in this case.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> >
> Ah......but can't this change cause dead lock ??
You mean the task goes for page allocation while holding some page
lock? Seems possible.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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