On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 11:15:47AM +0800, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > 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 ?? You mean the task goes for page allocation while holding some page lock? Seems possible. Thanks, Fengguang -- 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>