Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 May 2001 17:38:47 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: Linux-2.4.5 |
| |
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 08:23:00AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, 26 May 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > I don't see where you fixed the deadlock in create_buffers, if you did > > please show me which line of code is supposed to do that, I show you > > below which lines of code in my patch should fix the wait_event deadlock > > in create_buffers: > > Andrea, look at the page_alloc() path, and the "don't loop forever if > __GFP_IO isn't set and we're not making progress". That looks entirely > sane.
yes, I was only talking about create_buffers, not __alloc_pages. That patch can certainly address problems in alloc_pages.
> (and I like your patch that removes some more magic limits - I suspect the > proper fix is the 5 lines from Rik's patch in page_alloc.c, and your patch > together - amybody mind testing that out?)
Sounds the same to me.
> Oh, and I still _do_ think that we should rename the silly "async" flag as > "can_do_io", and then use that to determine whether to do SLAB_KERNEL or > SLAB_BUFFER. That would make more things able to do IO, which in turn > should help balance things out.
getblk still needs to use SLAB_BUFFER, not sure how many callers will be allowed to use SLAB_KERNEL, but certainly the "async" name was not very appropriate to indicate if the bh allocation can fail or not.
Andrea - 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/
| |