[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] __free_pages_ok oops
    On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > The mechanism to do what I described above should of course be
    > in __free_pages_ok().
    > if (PageLRU(page)) {
    > if (in_interrupt()) {
    > add_page_to_special_list(page);
    > return;
    > } else
    > lru_cache_del(page);
    > }

    If this were a common case where many pages end up, yes, we'd
    need a separate special list; but it's a very rare case, so I
    think it's more appropriate to let shrink_cache do it when it
    eventually reaches them on the inactive_list.

    I was proposing we revert to distinguishing page_cache_release
    from put_page, page_cache_release doing the lru_cache_del; and
    I'd like to add my in_interrupt() BUG() there for now, just as
    a sanity check. You are proposing that we keep the current,
    post-Ben, structure of doing it in __free_pages_ok if possible.

    I think I prefer mine, in_interrupt() as a sanity check which
    could be removed when we feel safer, to yours where it's
    deciding the behaviour of __free_pages_ok. Any strong feelings?


    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 13:24    [W:0.021 / U:0.204 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site