On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > 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 ?
> __GFP_IO set to 1 means that the allocator can afford doing IO implicitly
> by the page allocator. Most allocations dont care at all wether swap IO is
> started as part of gfp() or not. But a prominent counter-example is
> GFP_BUFFER, which is used by the buffer-cache/fs layer, and which cannot
> do any IO implicitly. (because it *is* the IO layer already, and it is
> already trying to do IO.) The other reason are legacy lowlevel-filesystem
> locks like the ext2fs lock, which cannot be taken recursively.
Hmmm, doesn't GFP_BUFFER simply imply that we cannot
allocate new buffer heads to do IO with??
(from reading buffer.c, I can't see much of a reason
why we couldn't start write IO on already allocated
-- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:15 EST