From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 3/3][RFC] Containers: Pagecache controller reclaim From: Shane In-Reply-To: <45ED4CF7.7030501@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20070305145237.003560000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > <20070305145311.247699000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > <1173178212.4998.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45ED4CF7.7030501@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:03:59 +1000 Message-Id: <1173258239.4998.79.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan Cc: riel@redhat.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, balbir@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xemul@sw.ru, linux-mm@kvack.org, menage@google.com, devel@openvz.org, clameter@sgi.com List-ID: On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 16:43 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote: > > Please let me know if so see any problem running the patch. The > patches are against 2.6.20 only since dependent patches are at that level. My problem - a bad copy of the patch. It patches o.k. However, it fails to compile vmscan. This looks a bit dodgy; ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ @@ -1470,11 +1494,13 @@ unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned int pass; struct reclaim_state reclaim_state; struct scan_control sc = { - .gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL, + .gfp_mask = GFdefined(CONFIG_CONTAINER_PAGECACHE_ACCT) +P_KERNEL, ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I deleted what looks like an over-enthusiastic "copy-and-paste", and it compiled o.k. Testing continues. Shane ... -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org