[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19141.36258.926599.862333@notabene.brown>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:20:34 +1000
From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Wouter Verhelst <w@...r.be>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
trond.myklebust@....uio.no
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/31] mm: serialize access to min_free_kbytes
On Thursday October 1, rientjes@...gle.com wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Suresh Jayaraman wrote:
>
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> >
> > There is a small race between the procfs caller and the memory hotplug caller
> > of setup_per_zone_wmarks(). Not a big deal, but the next patch will add yet
> > another caller. Time to close the gap.
> >
>
> By "next patch," you mean "mm: emegency pool" (patch 08/31)?
:-) It is always safer to say "a subsequent patch", isn't it....
>
> If so, can't you eliminate var_free_mutex entirely from that patch and
> take min_free_lock in adjust_memalloc_reserve() instead?
adjust_memalloc_reserve does a test alloc/free cycle under a lock.
That cannot be done under a spin-lock, it must be a mutex.
So I don't think you can eliminate var_free_mutex.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> [ __adjust_memalloc_reserve() would call __setup_per_zone_wmarks()
> under lock instead, now. ]
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists