Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:08:05 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: 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 buffers...)
regards,
Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
- 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/
|  |