Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751948AbXARFVx (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:21:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751947AbXARFVx (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:21:53 -0500 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:35318 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751943AbXARFVw (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:21:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:21:33 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter To: Andrew Morton cc: menage@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@suse.de, pj@sgi.com, dgc@sgi.com Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Cpuset aware writeback In-Reply-To: <20070117172534.fbe92a88.akpm@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <20070116054743.15358.77287.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <20070116135325.3441f62b.akpm@osdl.org> <20070116154054.e655f75c.akpm@osdl.org> <20070116170734.947264f2.akpm@osdl.org> <20070116183406.ed777440.akpm@osdl.org> <20070116200506.d19eacf5.akpm@osdl.org> <20070116230034.b8cb4263.akpm@osdl.org> <20070117141046.cd19c9e8.akpm@osdl.org> <20070117172534.fbe92a88.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1332 Lines: 29 On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > The problem there is that we do a GFP_ATOMIC allocation (no allocation > > context) that may fail when the first page is dirtied. We must therefore > > be able to subsequently allocate the nodemask_t in set_page_dirty(). > > Otherwise the first failure will mean that there will never be a dirty > > map for the inode/mapping. > > True. But it's pretty simple to change __mark_inode_dirty() to fix this. Ok I tried it but this wont work unless I also pass the page struct pointer to __mark_inode_dirty() since the dirty_node pointer could be freed when the inode_lock is droppped. So I cannot dereference the dirty_nodes pointer outside of __mark_inode_dirty. If I expand __mark_inode_dirty then all variations of mark_inode_dirty() need to be changed and we need to pass a page struct everywhere. This result in extensive changes. I think I need to stick with the tree_lock. This also makes more sense since we modify dirty information in the address_space structure and the radix tree is already protected by that lock. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/