From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 10:49:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Warning on memory offline (and possible in usual migration?) In-Reply-To: <20080506085234.GB10141@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20080501014418.GB15179@wotan.suse.de> <20080502004445.GB30768@wotan.suse.de> <20080502012350.GF30768@wotan.suse.de> <20080505042751.GB26920@wotan.suse.de> <20080506085234.GB10141@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Andrew Morton , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , GOTO List-ID: On Tue, 6 May 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Is there any easy way to check if any of the buffers are locked? It would > > be good if we could skip the pages with pending I/O on the first migration > > passes and only get to them after most of the others have been migrated. > > The taking of the buffer locks instead of the page lock defeats the scheme > > to defer the difficult migrations till later. > > Can't you just test whether the buffers are locked? That would mean adding some ugly code that check before we lock the page if we will be using buffer_migrate_page() later and then loop over the buffers checking for lock bits? -- 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