Re: [PATCH 1/5] Swap Migration V5: LRU operations

[Christoph Lameter]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:

> >  +int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
> >  +{
> >  +	int rc = 0;
> >  +	struct zone *zone = page_zone(page);
> >  +
> >  +redo:
> >  +	spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> >  +	rc = __isolate_lru_page(zone, page);
> >  +	spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> >  +	if (rc == 0) {
> >  +		/*
> >  +		 * Maybe this page is still waiting for a cpu to drain it
> >  +		 * from one of the lru lists?
> >  +		 */
> >  +		smp_call_function(&lru_add_drain_per_cpu, NULL, 0 , 1);
> 
> lru_add_drain() ends up doing spin_unlock_irq(), so we'll enable interrupts
> within the smp_call_function() handler.  Is that legal on all
> architectures?

isolate_lru_pages() is only called within a process context in the swap 
migration patches. The hotplug folks may have to address this if they want 
to isolate pages from interrupts etc.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/