[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: page_launder() bug

On Mon, 7 May 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti writes:
> > I was wrong. The patch is indeed buggy because of the __GFP_IO thing.
> What about the __GFP_IO thing?
> Specifically, what protects the __GFP_IO thing from happening without
> my patch?


/* First time through? Move it to the back of the list */
if (!launder_loop) {
list_add(page_lru, &inactive_dirty_list);

if (can_get_io_locks && !launder_loop && free_shortage()) {
launder_loop = 1;

Notice? If "can_get_io_locks" is not true, we will never call
"writepage()" on the page, because if "can_get_io_locks" is false,
"launder_loop" will always be false too..

And "can_get_io_locks" depends on __GFP_IO.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.146 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site