[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: refill_inactive()
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> i'm wondering about the following piece of code in refill_inactive():
> if (current->need_resched && (gfp_mask & __GFP_IO)) {
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> schedule();
> }
> shouldnt this be __GFP_WAIT? It's true that __GFP_IO implies __GFP_WAIT
> (because IO cannot be done without potentially scheduling), so the code is
> not buggy, but the above 'yielding' of the CPU should be done in the
> GFP_BUFFER case as well. (which is __GFP_WAIT but not __GFP_IO)
> Objections?

1) if __GFP_WAIT isn't set, we cannot run try_to_free_pages at all

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 ?


"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 12:38    [W:0.074 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site