Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:44:15 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] Swap Migration V5: LRU operations |
| |
Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote: > > +static void lru_add_drain_per_cpu(void *dummy) > +{ > + lru_add_drain(); > +} > + > +/* > + * Isolate one page from the LRU lists and put it on the > + * indicated list. Do necessary cache draining if the > + * page is not on the LRU lists yet. > + * > + * Result: > + * 0 = page not on LRU list > + * 1 = page removed from LRU list and added to the specified list. > + * -1 = page is being freed elsewhere. > + */ > +int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page) > +{ > + int rc = 0; > + struct zone *zone = page_zone(page); > + > +redo: > + spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock); > + rc = __isolate_lru_page(zone, page); > + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock); > + if (rc == 0) { > + /* > + * Maybe this page is still waiting for a cpu to drain it > + * from one of the lru lists? > + */ > + smp_call_function(&lru_add_drain_per_cpu, NULL, 0 , 1);
lru_add_drain() ends up doing spin_unlock_irq(), so we'll enable interrupts within the smp_call_function() handler. Is that legal on all architectures?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |