From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4KHDOwA020963 for ; Fri, 20 May 2005 13:13:24 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j4KHDNi4123874 for ; Fri, 20 May 2005 13:13:23 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j4KHDNbX017083 for ; Fri, 20 May 2005 13:13:23 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:06:47 -0700 From: Chandra Seetharaman Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 2/6] CKRM: Core framework support Message-ID: <20050520170647.GC28304@chandralinux.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20050519003205.GA25232@chandralinux.beaverton.ibm.com> <20050520022732.A6646717AE@sv1.valinux.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050520022732.A6646717AE@sv1.valinux.co.jp> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KUROSAWA Takahiro Cc: ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 11:27:31AM +0900, KUROSAWA Takahiro wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 18 May 2005 17:32:05 -0700 > Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > > Index: linux-2612-rc3/mm/page_alloc.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2612-rc3.orig/mm/page_alloc.c > > +++ linux-2612-rc3/mm/page_alloc.c > > @@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ __alloc_pages(unsigned int __nocast gfp_ > > */ > > can_try_harder = (unlikely(rt_task(p)) && !in_interrupt()) || !wait; > > > > - if (!ckrm_class_limit_ok(ckrm_get_mem_class(p))) > > + if (!ckrm_class_limit_ok(ckrm_task_memclass(p))) > > return NULL; > > > > zones = zonelist->zones; /* the list of zones suitable for gfp_mask */ > > __alloc_pages() seems to look at the limit of the interrupted task > when an interrupt handler calls __alloc_pages(). It might be better > not to use ckrm_class_limit_ok() in in_interrupt() case, as we can't > assume that the interrupt is caused by the interrupted task. Sounds valid... I had it before that way, for for some other reasoning of mine. will get it back. > > In can_try_harder case, how about trying to reclaim pages that belong > to the class if !ckrm_class_limit_ok() ? Sounds a good idea. will do it. Thanks for your comments. > > Regards, > > -- > KUROSAWA, Takahiro -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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: aart@kvack.org