From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch 2/8] mm: write_cache_pages AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE fix Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:05:55 +1100 References: <20081009155039.139856823@suse.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810111505.55812.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Miklos Szeredi , npiggin@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mpatocka@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Saturday 11 October 2008 05:29, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, npiggin@suse.de wrote: > > > In write_cache_pages, if AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE is returned, the > > > filesystem is calling on us to drop the page lock and retry, > > > > Are you sure? It's not what fs.h says. I think this return value is > > related to reclaim (and only used by shmfs), and retrying is not the > > right thing in that case. Oh, you're absolutely right about that. Sorry, I confused it with another AOP flag :( Thanks... > Only used by shmfs nowadays, yes; it means go away for now, > don't keep on spamming me with this, but try it again later on. > > Though I didn't invent it, it's very much my fault that it > still exists: I've had a patch to remove it (setting PageActive > instead, ending that horrid "but in this case, return with the > page still locked") for about a year, but still hadn't got around > to verifying that it really does what's intended, before the more > interesting split-lru changes reached -mm, and I thought it polite > to hold off for now (though in fact there's almost no conflict). > I'll get there... No big deal. -- 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