[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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean