On Sunday 27 January 2008 17:03, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:03:25 +0800 Shaohua Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > - if (!page->mapping)
> > + if (!page->mapping) {
> > + if (!PageAnon(page) && PagePrivate(page))
> > + try_to_release_page(page, GFP_KERNEL);
> > goto rcu_unlock;
> > + }
>
> We call something(GFP_KERNEL) under rcu_read_lock()? I've lost track of
> the myriad flavours of rcu which we purport to support, but I don't think
> they'll all like us blocking under rcu_read_lock().
>
> We _won't_ block, because try_to_release_page() will see the NULL ->mapping
> and will call the non-blocking try_to_free_buffers(). But still, it looks
> bad, and will cause problems if someone decides to add a might_sleep_if()
> to try_to_release_page().
>
> So... I'd suggest that it would be better to add an apologetic comment and
> call direct into try_to_free_buffers().
You're right, but can't we just rcu_read_unlock() before try_to_release_page?
--
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/
