On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i'm wondering about the following piece of code in refill_inactive():
>
> if (current->need_resched && (gfp_mask & __GFP_IO)) {
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> schedule();
> }
>
> shouldnt this be __GFP_WAIT? It's true that __GFP_IO implies __GFP_WAIT
> (because IO cannot be done without potentially scheduling), so the code is
> not buggy, but the above 'yielding' of the CPU should be done in the
> GFP_BUFFER case as well. (which is __GFP_WAIT but not __GFP_IO)
>
> Objections?
1) if __GFP_WAIT isn't set, we cannot run try_to_free_pages at all
2) you are right, we /can/ schedule when __GFP_IO isn't set, this is
mistake ... now I'm getting confused about what __GFP_IO is all
about, does anybody know the _exact_ meaning of __GFP_IO ?
regards,
Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:14 EST