Re: [PATCH 05/10] vmscan: Synchrounous lumpy reclaim use lock_page() instead trylock_page()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 12:04:48 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon,  6 Sep 2010 11:47:28 +0100
> Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > With synchrounous lumpy reclaim, there is no reason to give up to reclaim
> > pages even if page is locked. This patch uses lock_page() instead of
> > trylock_page() in this case.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
Ah......but can't this change cause dead lock ??

Thanks,
-Kame

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]