On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 12:43 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 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?
or we could move the code above before doing rcu_read_lock()?
--
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/
