Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:08:51 +0100 (BST) | From | Tigran Aivazian <> | Subject | Re: [patch-2.4.0-test10-pre3] logic of __alloc_pages_limit( |
| |
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On 16 Oct 00 at 22:50, Tigran Aivazian wrote: > > + struct page *page; > > /* If possible, reclaim a page directly. */ > > - if (direct_reclaim && z->free_pages < z->pages_min + 8) > > + if (direct_reclaim && z->free_pages < z->pages_min + 8) { > > page = reclaim_page(z); > > - /* If that fails, fall back to rmqueue. */ > > - if (!page) > > - page = rmqueue(z, order); > > - if (page) > > - return page; > > + /* If that fails, fall back to rmqueue. */ > > + if (!page) { > > + page = rmqueue(z, order); > > + if (page) > > + return page; > > + } > > Old code returned page from both reclaim_page() or rmqueue(), while new > returns pages only from rmqueue... What happens with page grabbed by > rmqueue, BTW ? Or is there something out of picture I do not see? > Petr
You are absolutely right, sorry. I will keep my eyes open a bit wider next time. I put back Linus and linux-kernel to admit my mistake.
Regards, Tigran
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |