[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: refill_inactive()
    On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > > 2) you are right, we /can/ schedule when __GFP_IO isn't set, this is
    > > mistake ... now I'm getting confused about what __GFP_IO is all
    > > about, does anybody know the _exact_ meaning of __GFP_IO ?
    > __GFP_IO set to 1 means that the allocator can afford doing IO implicitly
    > by the page allocator. Most allocations dont care at all wether swap IO is
    > started as part of gfp() or not. But a prominent counter-example is
    > GFP_BUFFER, which is used by the buffer-cache/fs layer, and which cannot
    > do any IO implicitly. (because it *is* the IO layer already, and it is
    > already trying to do IO.) The other reason are legacy lowlevel-filesystem
    > locks like the ext2fs lock, which cannot be taken recursively.

    Hmmm, doesn't GFP_BUFFER simply imply that we cannot
    allocate new buffer heads to do IO with??

    (from reading buffer.c, I can't see much of a reason
    why we couldn't start write IO on already allocated


    "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
    -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.021 / U:32.636 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site