From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sd0109e.au.ibm.com (d23rh905.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.225]) by e23smtp06.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8P4QhYb031088 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:26:43 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by sd0109e.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l8P4UFN4203362 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:30:17 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l8P4QfkY025134 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:26:41 +1000 Message-ID: <46F88DFB.3020307@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:56:35 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch -mm 4/5] mm: test and set zone reclaim lock before starting reclaim References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: David Rientjes Cc: Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: David Rientjes wrote: > + > + if (zone_test_and_set_flag(zone, ZONE_RECLAIM_LOCKED)) > + return 0; What's the consequence of this on the caller of zone_reclaim()? I see that the zone is marked as full and will not be re-examined again. Am I missing something? > + ret = __zone_reclaim(zone, gfp_mask, order); > + zone_clear_flag(zone, ZONE_RECLAIM_LOCKED); > + > + return ret; > } > #endif -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL -- 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