From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:45:34 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: refill_inactive() Message-ID: <20000925184534.M2615@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from torvalds@transmeta.com on Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 09:17:54AM -0700 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Rik van Riel , Ingo Molnar , Roger Larsson , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 09:17:54AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > Hmmm, doesn't GFP_BUFFER simply imply that we cannot > > allocate new buffer heads to do IO with?? > > No. > > New buffer heads would be ok - recursion is fine in theory, as long as it > is bounded, and we might bound it some other way (I don't think we > _should_ do recursion here due to the stack limit, but at least it's not > a fundamental problem). Right, but we still need to be careful --- we _were_ getting stack overflows occassionally before the GFP_BUFFER semantics were set up to prevent that recursion. --Stephen -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/