Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 May 2001 08:17:58 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Linux-2.4.5 |
| |
On Sat, 26 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > I am smoking the "tested the patch and wasn't able to reproduce > a deadlock" stuff.
I'd be happier if _anybody_ was smoking the "thought about the problem some more" stuff as well.
I can easily imagine that this part of your patch
if (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) { memory_pressure++; - try_to_free_pages(gfp_mask); - goto try_again; + if (!order || free_shortage()) { + int progress = try_to_free_pages(gfp_mask); + if (progress || gfp_mask & __GFP_IO) + goto try_again; + } }
is fine. The fact that other parts of your patch were NOT fine should make you go "Hmm, maybe Linus dismissed it for a reason" instead.
Testing is good. But I want to understand how we get into the situation in the first place, and whether there are ways to alleviate those problems too.
Testing and finding that the bug went away under your workload is good. But thinking that that should stop discussion about the _proper_ fix is stupid, Rik.
Linus
- 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/
| |