Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] deadlock prevention core

[Indan Zupancic]

On Sat, August 12, 2006 16:14, Peter Zijlstra said:
> +struct sk_buff *__alloc_skb(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp_mask, int fclone)
> +{
> +	struct sk_buff *skb;
> +
> +	skb = ___alloc_skb(size, gfp_mask & ~__GFP_MEMALLOC, fclone);
> +
> +	if (!skb && (gfp_mask & __GFP_MEMALLOC) && memalloc_skbs_available())
> +		skb = ___alloc_skb(size, gfp_mask, fclone);
> +
> +	return skb;
> +}
> +

I'd drop the memalloc_skbs_available() check, as that's already done by
___alloc_skb.

> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(memalloc_lock);
> +static int memalloc_socks;
> +static unsigned long memalloc_reserve;

Why is this a long? adjust_memalloc_reserve() takes an int.
Is it needed at all, considering var_free_kbytes already exists?

Greetings,

Indan


-
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/