Messages in this thread |  | | | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 05/10] vmscan: Synchrounous lumpy reclaim use lock_page() instead trylock_page() | | Date | Thu, 9 Sep 2010 13:13:22 +0900 (JST) |
| |
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 12:04:48 +0900 > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 11:47:28 +0100 > > Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote: > > > > > From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.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@jp.fujitsu.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> > > > > Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > > Ah......but can't this change cause dead lock ??
Yes, this patch is purely crappy. please drop. I guess I was poisoned by poisonous mushroom of Mario Bros.
|  |