From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <44640.81.207.0.53.1155403862.squirrel@81.207.0.53> In-Reply-To: <20060812141445.30842.47336.sendpatchset@lappy> References: <20060812141415.30842.78695.sendpatchset@lappy> <20060812141445.30842.47336.sendpatchset@lappy> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:31:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] deadlock prevention core From: "Indan Zupancic" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Evgeniy Polyakov , Daniel Phillips , Rik van Riel , David Miller List-ID: 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. > +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. Is it needed at all, considering var_free_kbytes already exists? Greetings, Indan -- 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