On Tuesday 15 May 2007 19:58, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 15:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:50:54 +1000 > > > > Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > akpm, please queue on top of "mm: swap prefetch improvements" > > > > > > --- > > > Failed radix_tree_insert wasn't being handled leaving stale kmem. > > > > > > The list should be iterated over in the reverse order when prefetching. > > > > > > Make the yield within kprefetchd stronger through the use of > > > cond_resched. > > > > hm. > > > > > - might_sleep(); > > > - if (!prefetch_suitable()) > > > + /* Yield to anything else running */ > > > + if (cond_resched() || !prefetch_suitable()) > > > goto out_unlocked; > > > > So if cond_resched() happened to schedule away, we terminate this > > swap-tricking attempt. It's not possible to determine the reasons for > > this from the code or from the changelog (==bad). > > > > How come? > > I think Con meant need_resched(). That would indicate someone else wants > to use the CPU and and has higher priority than kprefetchd.
It may well be that need_resched is what I was trying to do... I don't need it to do the resched and _then_ break out of swap prefetch. -- -ck - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
