From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:20:44 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch][rfc] radix-tree: be a nice citizen Message-Id: <20070829022044.9730888e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070829090301.GB32236@wotan.suse.de> References: <20070829085039.GA32236@wotan.suse.de> <20070829015702.7c8567c2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070829090301.GB32236@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:03:01 +0200 Nick Piggin wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:57:02AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:50:39 +0200 Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > ISTR that last time I sent you a patch to do the same thing, you > > > had some objections. I can't remember what they were though, but > > > I guess you didn't end up merging it. > > > > So you can't remember what the problem was, and I have to work iyut > > out again. Is this efficient? > > No, but better than leaving it unfixed. It was years ago. I did try > to find it. > ho hum. > > > > I was reminded by the problem after seeing an atomic allocation > > > failure trace from pagecache radix tree inesrtion. > > > > wot? radix-tree node allocation for pagecache insertion doesn't fail. > > The atomic allocation that's part of node allocation can. radix-tree node allocations under add_to_page_cache() can't fail. Or if they can, there's some bug. IOW, I don't have a clue what you're trying to tell me. Can we start again? -- 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: email@kvack.org