lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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?

This:

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


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.

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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.088 / U:23.400 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site