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

[Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>]

On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 19:31 +0200, Indan Zupancic wrote:
> 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.

Right, thanks. Hmm, its the last occurence of that function, even
better.

> > +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.

Euhm, right :-) long comes naturaly when I think about quantities op
pages. The adjust_memalloc_reserve() argument is an increment, a delta;
perhaps I should change that to long.

> Is it needed at all, considering var_free_kbytes already exists?

Having them separate would allow ajust_memalloc_reserve() to be used by
other callers too (would need some extra locking).

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>