lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/8] Cpuset aware writeback
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > The problem there is that we do a GFP_ATOMIC allocation (no allocation
> > context) that may fail when the first page is dirtied. We must therefore
> > be able to subsequently allocate the nodemask_t in set_page_dirty().
> > Otherwise the first failure will mean that there will never be a dirty
> > map for the inode/mapping.
>
> True. But it's pretty simple to change __mark_inode_dirty() to fix this.

Ok I tried it but this wont work unless I also pass the page struct pointer to
__mark_inode_dirty() since the dirty_node pointer could be freed
when the inode_lock is droppped. So I cannot dereference the
dirty_nodes pointer outside of __mark_inode_dirty.

If I expand __mark_inode_dirty then all variations of mark_inode_dirty()
need to be changed and we need to pass a page struct everywhere. This
result in extensive changes.

I think I need to stick with the tree_lock. This also makes more sense
since we modify dirty information in the address_space structure and the
radix tree is already protected by that lock.


-
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: 2007-01-18 07:11    [W:2.627 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site