Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:27:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:27:29 -0500 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:8720 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 08:27:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:27:09 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: "David S. Miller" , , , Hugh Dickins , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] __free_pages_ok oops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.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 On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > if (PageLRU(page)) { > > if (in_interrupt()) { > > add_page_to_special_list(page); > > return; > > } else > > lru_cache_del(page); > > } > > If this were a common case where many pages end up, yes, we'd > need a separate special list; but it's a very rare case Think of a web or ftp server doing nothing but sendfile() > I was proposing we revert to distinguishing page_cache_release > from put_page, page_cache_release doing the lru_cache_del; and > I'd like to add my in_interrupt() BUG() there for now, just as > a sanity check. You are proposing that we keep the current, > post-Ben, structure of doing it in __free_pages_ok if possible. So how exactly would pages be freed ? You still need to do the check of whether the page can be freed somewhere. regards, Rik -- "Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS" -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/